Greetings from somewhere close to Brighton Beach. Admittedly, the Brighton Beach at the end of the B Line from the Bronx, through Manhattan to Queens, but close nonetheless.

There has been a lot of talk about the impact of large donors in recent weeks, with increasing calls for strict limits on the maximum size of donations and tighter eligibility criteria for donors. And there is much to said for it.

The problem is that political parties have become increasingly dependent on a small number of large donors as membership numbers have declined and the obligations on political parties increase. Raising large sums from a small number of wealthy donors is, in many ways, much easier than developing broad-based small donor support. And, if you’re very wealthy, an investment in a political party, especially one with a prospect of power, is a potentially valuable one.

I used to be a member of the ALDE Party’s Financial Advisory Committee, effectively its audit and scrutiny body, developing its policy on donations and establishing clear and transparent reporting mechanisms. This was made much easier by the rule that no annual donation, corporate or individual, could exceed €18,000, approximately £15,000. It ensured that no European political party could easily be influenced by a large donor, allowing policymaking to be influenced more by ideas than the fear of a budgetary squeeze.

In turn, that removes or, at least, restricts, the perception of a political party as being owned by a small number of individuals whose motivation is perhaps questionable.

But that does leave the question of how you fund political parties going forward. In an ideal world, mass membership political parties would be self-financing but we probably need to be realistic – being a member of a political party requires a degree of compromise given that all of them are effective coalitions of opinion and the pressure groups offer people an opportunity to focus on the causes that matter to them.

And that’s why I think that state funding of political parties is probably the best solution. The principle has effectively been conceded – the freepost for General Elections is state funding, after all – and linking funding to performance in multiple electoral cycles will limit fluctuations in cashflow and allow parties to plan better.

This needs to be combined with stronger regulation of political parties. Not necessarily more but, as someone who works in the regulatory sector, the Electoral Commission poppedneeds better resourcing and more meaningful sticks – state funding being the carrot.

Sitting in a coffee shop in the country where campaign finance has locked voters into a binary choice of red or blue, and where the sums spent on even State-level campaigns can be more than British political parties can spend in an entire year, I fear what might happen if we allow our politics to stumble down the same path.

Here in New York, the city is still getting used to its new “InstaMayor”, Zohran Mamdani. As a somewhat jaded observer of politics, even I have to be impressed by his use of social media and his apparent focus on trying to make the city work better.

Talking to some family members who live in the city – Democrats, obviously – the sense is that his heart is in the right place but that his advisors need to ensure that he isn’t naive. But there is genuine hope that he can address some of the issues that get in the way of a flourishing city.

Here at Liberal Democrat Voice, my colleagues will doubtless have something to say about Federal Conference – right, colleagues? – and we’ll have Mathew Hulbert’s weekly column so, from across the ocean, enjoy the rest of your day!