The discussion was moderated by Michael Pinto-Duschinsky (Oxford University, Brunel), with panelists including Richard W. Soudriette (IFES), Jurij Toplak (Fordham, Alma Mater Europaea), Daniel Murphy (Democracy International), Magnus Öhman (IFES), and Beata Martin-Rozumilowicz (former Director for Europe and Eurasia at IFES).

Jurij Toplak highlighted the diminishing relevance of small donations: “We are past the time when we were concerned with small donations, $1,000 here, $10,000 there because the situation has changed so much that this became irrelevant.” He pointed to the dominance of digital platform owners: “Those who run four or five different platforms decide on what we see when we open the computer when we Google which candidate will be portrayed favorably in an election and which one negatively.” He further stated: “I believe that when those who live in a country do not have control over their communication, [when] the communication is controlled by somebody abroad, that this country ceases to be a democracy.”

Michael Pinto-Duschinsky provided a historical overview of political interference. While the European Parliament's RussiaGate resolution identifies Russia as a primary foreign interference threat, he emphasized the influence of other major powers, including China and the United States. He warned against viewing foreign interference solely as a rivalry among great powers, noting the significance of interference among smaller, neighboring nations. Pinto-Duschinsky cautioned against assuming modern media technology has exponentially increased foreign intervention: “I think we should beware of thinking that international intervention has exponentially grown because of the new media. It may have taken new forms, but we've had gross examples of international interference for hundreds of years.” Using historical examples from Bismarck's Germany and the influence of radio in the era of Nazism and Communism in the 20th century, he illustrated how foreign political influence has long been a persistent phenomenon.

Daniel Murphy, drawing on his extensive experience at IFES, expressed deep concern about the current state of U.S. support for democratic development globally. He reported widespread acknowledgment of increasing foreign interference: “The consensus of opinion among those I spoke with is that foreign interference is absolutely increasing.” He explained that new digital and AI-driven technologies have fundamentally changed the landscape of political influence: “Previously, attempting to exert political influence required an enormous level of sophistication and resources, meaning that state-level actors were the only ones capable of any meaningful or effective efforts.” He cited case studies from Tunisia, Egypt, and Bangladesh, highlighting foreign interference, particularly from regional actors. In Bangladesh, he detailed the role of social media in spreading disinformation: “Official accounts routinely share fabricated statements attributed to international leaders in Bangladesh.” He concluded by stressing the profound impact of digital technologies on modern political influence.

Richard W. Soudriette, founding president of IFES, reflected on the so-called “golden age of democracy promotion”, tracing its roots back to Ronald Reagan's Westminster Address in 1982. He emphasized the importance of election observation in that era while also acknowledging the role of financial support for institutions: “If you don't spend some money on helping the institutions, the election administration mechanisms, or what we would call the election management bodies to develop, then you're not going to have anything to observe.” He warned of the ongoing weakening of democratic institutions, citing recent developments in Mexico and the U.S., particularly the weakening of the Federal Election Commission.

Magnus Öhman, director of IFES’s Europe office, focused on various forms of foreign media influence, categorizing them as cyber-attacks, disinformation, and direct financial interference. He outlined different objectives of such influence, including direct support for candidates, undermining public trust in institutions, and shaping public opinion through social media influencers. He cited a case from Romania, where the election winner, later challenged by the Constitutional Court, benefited from influencer support without directly funding them: “It is not necessary for a foreign actor seeking to exert influence over another country to give money directly to a contestant in that country. You can spend it on your own.” He also noted the limited effectiveness of legal regulations against foreign financial influence, as political parties often avoid disclosure, fearing political backlash.

Beata Martin-Rozumilowicz illustrated foreign interference through the case of Ukraine, discussing the country’s efforts to curb illicit foreign influence on political parties. She highlighted Ukraine’s 2023 introduction of the PolitData system, an online platform for political financial transparency. Ukraine also launched investigative journalism training programs to support these efforts to help journalists utilize the system's data in their reporting. She pointed out the challenges posed by evolving interference tactics: “It's a very fast-moving environment where, as regulation changes and as attempts to control for this type of foreign influence are put in place, actors are then changing their strategies to be able to avoid those.”

In the discussion, Jurij Toplak raised the issue of USAID funding independent media in smaller countries, noting that while local candidates and parties face strict financial limitations, foreign actors like USAID invest millions: “How legitimate is it for a foreign country during election time to spend more than all political parties combined in a small country -- and even if it's not direct election campaigning, but it is some campaigning on some issue that is politically delicate?” Panelists emphasized the need for precise interpretation of financial data, the critical role of transparency, and a critical assessment of growing bureaucratic structures within democracy-support institutions.

Panel moderator Michael Pinto-Duschinsky concluded by emphasizing the importance of such discussions for sharing research and insights and expressed hope for continued dialogue on these critical issues.