Summary
Two inter-related concerns about Value Jersey’s role in this election deserve urgent scrutiny. Value Jersey appear to be spending what is, by Jersey standards, a very large sum — well over a hundred thousand pounds — on consultants from the Messina Group who are visibly and actively supporting Value Jersey-aligned candidates throughout the campaign. That spending has to go somewhere in the accounts. By not ticking the “involved with a political movement” box on their nomination forms, Value Jersey aligned candidates are apparently planning to limit their declared expenses to the specific services they individually procure — an hour of consultancy here, a hustings session there — leaving the bulk of the Messina Group’s costs with Value Jersey itself.
However, under the 2014 Law, all election spending must be accounted for: what isn’t declared as candidate expenditure must be declared as third-party expenditure. It is worth noting that third-party spending limits are very low — under £20,000 in total for the Deputy and Senator elections combined. There is no plausible way Value Jersey’s Messina Group bill falls within that limit, which raises the uncomfortable question of whether Value Jersey intends to declare their spending on the Messina Group at all.
This situation raises a number of further questions for Value Jersey-aligned candidates, Value Jersey and the JEA.
- Why did Value Jersey-aligned candidates not tick the “involved with a movement” box on their electoral nomination form, given that they are working so closely with consultants contracted by Value Jersey? Was it to avoid having to declare Value Jersey’s spending on the Messina Group in their expenses declaration? How do they intend to account for costs such as the travel and accommodation of consultants who they employ?
- Are Value Jersey planning to declare their Messina Group spending as a “Third Party” under the electoral law, and if not why not? Has Value Jersey established clear accounting for which spending is candidate expenditure and which is third-party expenditure?
- Are the JEA satisfied in the light of events since nominations closed that all the Value Jersey-aligned candidate declarations are accurate? What due diligence has the JEA undertaken to ensure that candidate’s declarations are accurate, in the light of what appears to be clear involvement of Value Jersey-aligned candidates with Value Jersey throughout the campaign? What test are they applying to the question of whether a candidate is “involved” with a movement? And what would be the implications of a candidate being found to have made a false declaration?
The risk is that failure to resolve these questions now leaves open the possibility of a legal challenge to election results by a losing candidates on at least two grounds. First, that Value Jersey-aligned candidates made a materially false declaration on their nomination forms by denying involvement with a political movement with which they were clearly involved and whose spending they clearly benefited from; and second, that campaign spending rules have been seriously breached.
Below, I explore these arguments in more detail.
Introduction
Large amounts of undeclared money are being poured into this election campaign by Value Jersey to support candidates who are aligned with them, but have not officially declared themselves as Value Jersey candidates (I’ll call them Value Jersey-aligned candidates). This raises serious questions about the fairness of the election, compliance with the election funding law, and the accuracy of candidates’ nomination form declarations.
Just to be clear: I have no problem with Value Jersey from a political point of view. They are entitled to promote their policies and principles (some of which I support), and there is nothing wrong with wealthy donors supporting a political cause. But transparency around an election is a different matter and it is transparency that is at issue here.
Election funding and the role of political movements in this election are issues that I have pursued in the States Assembly, asking oral and written questions of the Attorney General to clarify the legal issues at stake. Transparency is one of my core values and that is why I am pursuing this matter.
So far, Jersey elections have avoided the money swamping that has occurred in some other jurisdictions. Indeed, Jersey’s election law is designed specifically to avoid this outcome. It is in all our interests therefore that there is full transparency around election spending and I would have thought that desire would be shared by all those standing as candidates and supporting candidates. (And for full transparency, my own campaign is entirely self funded.)
The Messina Group
Since the campaign began, consultants from the Messina Group — employed by Value Jersey — have been actively supporting candidates. The Messina Group is a boutique political consultancy established by Jim Messina, who played a central role in Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. They do not come cheap. Maintaining a significant presence on the island for the duration of the campaign is likely to be costing comfortably over a hundred thousand pounds.
Those currently working in Jersey include Justin Lines, described as Deputy Director of International Campaigns, specialising in “asymmetric contests and fragile political environments”. It’s not difficult to see why he would be considered a good fit for the Jersey political context. Also present in the island is Lottie Dane, who comes from a background working in the Conservative Party. Others have been spotted at events but not yet identified.
Messina Group operatives are attending hustings where Value Jersey-aligned candidates are standing. They lead the clapping, visibly engage with candidates, and are coaching them in preparation. They have been seen out leafletting with Value Jersey-aligned candidates. They have helped develop the policy platform which Value Jersey aligned candidates say they support, and they have developed the “messaging” around that platform, which is also being used by the Value Jersey-aligned candidates. This draft Value Jersey webpage for example is shown as authored by Justin Lines. So where will this funding be declared?
The JEP has previously reported that Value Jersey has employed Messina, but that campaign help will have to be paid for by individual candidates who use their expertise. This answer raises as many questions as it answers.
Question One: The Election Expenses Question
The PUBLIC ELECTIONS (EXPENDITURE AND DONATIONS) (JERSEY) LAW 2014 governs election spending. Its intent is threefold: to capture all spending on an election by or in support of candidates; to place specific limits on that spending; and to require full declaration of spending and its sources.
The law draws a key distinction. First, there is a candidate’s own election expenses, which include those incurred by a political party or others on their behalf. So if a party spends £10,000 on advertising for its candidates, that sum must be divided between them in their expense declarations. Separately, there is expenditure incurred by “third parties” who seek to influence an election without the express or implied consent of a candidate. The spending limits for third parties are very low: roughly one half of what a single candidate in each class of election may spend. In round terms, the total a third party may spend across the Senator and Deputy elections combined is somewhere between £15,000 and £20,000.
It is worth emphasising that all election expenditure must fit into one of these two categories (as was made clear by the Attorney General in answer to a question of mine in the Assembly on January 22nd of this year). If it is spending with the consent of the candidate, it must be part of their declaration. If it does not fit into this category then it is spending without their consent and this is classified as “third party” spending. It must be declared by the third party. These provisions appear designed to prevent the kind of situation that arises in the United States, where political action committees (Super PACs) spend billions bypassing campaign finance laws precisely because they are not directly associated with a candidate.
Now apply this to Value Jersey. Value Jersey’s stated position is that any candidate using Messina Group advice will pay for it themselves. (Are they paying the Messina group directly? Or are they paying Value Jersey for a part of the service that Value Jersey has contracted?) This may cover the time candidates spend directly with the consultants. But it cannot cover the full cost of the Messina Group’s presence on the island — the flights, the accommodation, the time spent working with Value Jersey, preparing policy positions, shaping messaging and so on. That expenditure has not been “expressly” consented to by the candidates, but it is plainly intended to influence the election. Under the law, that makes Value Jersey a third party — and the spending on the Messina Group not declared by candidates must fall within the third-party limit of under £20,000.
This raises a series of questions that deserve clear answers:
- Is Value Jersey intending to declare its full election spending — including on the Messina Group — as a third party expenditure, and if not, why not?
- Who is paying for the Messina Group operatives to attend hustings and support candidates on the ground?
- How is the expense of the Messina Group presence in the island being attributed between candidates and Value Jersey?
- Has Value Jersey established clear accounting for which spending is candidate expenditure and which is third-party expenditure?
None of these questions should be a surprise to Value Jersey or to candidates. As noted earlier, I was asking questions about the definition of a “third party” and associated spending limits back in January, and I raised the matter with the Attorney General in the States Assembly. The questions and answers are set out in the appendix below.
Question Two: The “Involvement” Question
There is a related issue, connected to the curious reluctance of Value Jersey aligned candidates to formally identify with the movement.
The candidate nomination form gave independent candidates two options: either to declare themselves fully independent, or to declare “I am an independent candidate involved with the following political movement/group.” No Value Jersey-aligned candidate ticked the second box. Their apparent argument is that because they declared they were no longer involved with Value Jersey, the box did not apply to them.
This is unlikely to be legally sufficient.
“Involvement” is a term defined by its common meaning — not by a candidate’s self-declaration. In other words, it is subject to a substance test: a bare statement of non-involvement does not override the evidence. A reasonable interpretation of “involved” in this context would be to have a “meaningful and active relationship” with Value Jersey. It is very hard to argue that the Value Jersey aligned candidates do not have a “meaningful and active” relationship with Value Jersey, given the shared linkage to the Messina Group.
At the time of nomination, the Jersey Electoral Authority may have had little choice but to accept candidates’ declarations at face value. But the position has moved on. The Messina Group are in Jersey because of Value Jersey. The Messian Group have been intimately involved in shaping Value Jersey’s policy platform. Value Jersey-aligned candidates continue to promote Value Jersey policies. They are being coached by consultants contracted and — it appears — substantially funded by Value Jersey. Add it all up, and by any reasonable common meaning of the word “involved,” the connection is undeniable.
This raises its own set of questions:
- Does the JEA consider any candidates in this election to be acting as “involved” with a political group? And if so, what are the consequences for their nomination declarations?
- Could a losing candidate have grounds to legally challenge the result if a fraudulent declaration were found to have been made by a winning candidate?
- Did Value Jersey and/or the Messina Group advise candidates on whether or not to tick the “movement” box — and on what basis?
- On what basis do Value Jersey-aligned candidates argue they are not “involved” with Value Jersey? Given that they were indisputably involved until the campaign began, what has substantively changed?
The Two Questions Together
These two issues are connected. By not declaring an association with Value Jersey, candidates are able to declare only a small portion of the Messina Group’s spending on their individual expense forms. Had they declared involvement with Value Jersey, the picture may have looked very different: the entire Messina Group expenditure would have been with their consent and therefore would have had to be part of their election expenses.
We still do not know who is funding Value Jersey. They have referred to “donations,” which conjures images of tin-rattling in King Street, whereas it is generally understood that the funding has come mainly from a small number of very large donations from very wealthy individuals. There’s nothing wrong with that in principle, so long as it is out in the open. But in the context of a small island election, with a law specifically designed to ensure transparency and fairness, and to place limits on election spending the public is entitled to full answers as to who is funding Value Jersey, what they are spending on the election, and how that spending will be declared. Otherwise we risk descending into the kind of
Jonathan Renouf 2026 election campaign 