Popular anonymous message and meme account KCL Confessions stated last month that it would consider endorsing candidates in the King’s College London Student Union (KCLSU) elections only in exchange for a fee of £20. There is no evidence that the mooted transactions ever actually took place, but the incident has been acknowledged by the Union.
In messages from mid-February seen by Roar, the anonymous account confirmed that they would be endorsing candidates, but that they would “charge” £20, “after we’ve even considered [sic] whether or not you’re a good candidate”. The KCLSU has ten high-profile university-wide positions up for election this March.
On Saturday 2 March, the account posted a message with its official endorsements for the elections. The endorsed candidates have been contacted by Roar for comment. All of those who responded have denied both payment and being asked by the KCL Confessions account for any money. One candidate who was endorsed by the account told Roar had they had also heard the rumour that the account was asking for endorsement money, but confirmed that they had not paid for the promotion.
Roar finds it very unlikely that any candidate has actually paid for their endorsement and there is no proof of any candidate making such a transfer.
The KCL Confessions’ endorsement post caption says: “These are the candidates we believe will bring effective change. We have endorsed these candidates after careful consideration and we wish these candidates the very best.”
When contacted for comment, KCL Confessions told Roar that they categorically denied the allegation. They confirmed that this was their business model for other transactions – the page promotes, for example, room sub-lettings – but denied ever asking for or receiving money for the endorsements.
Speaking to Roar on the condition of anonymity, the individual who received the financial offer from KCL Confessions said: “I was very surprised to see this account using its influence as an opportunity to make money from prospective candidates. Endorsements from student groups clearly have an impact on election outcomes, but now that we are seeing anonymous online accounts doing the same and reaching students who may not otherwise engage with the SU, it does feel like the legitimacy of the election is somewhat undermined.”
With 5,592 followers, the KCL Confessions account is one of the biggest in the King’s College London (KCL) community. Last year, five of the six endorsements made by KCL Confessions won their respective races, after their post received 132 likes.
At the time of writing, this year’s endorsement post has currently been liked by 208 people. Last year, incumbent KCLSU President Steven Suresh was elected with only 505.5 votes (KCLSU use a vote-transfer electoral system).
The KCLSU Election Protocol & Guidance outlines that Student Officer candidates have a £50 budget for their campaign, while Student Trustee and Student Group Committee candidates have a £20 budget, which can be expensed from the Union. The KCLSU Bye-Laws do not explicitly ban paying for endorsements. However, KCLSU Bye-Law 5.4 does say that elections “should be democratic. No one may attempt to undermine the democratic legitimacy of elections”.
Roar understands that the case has already been brought to the attention of the KCLSU. In response, the Deputy Returning Officer (DRO) took no action, citing:
- The anonymity of the account
- The account ‘not referencing’ the elections or seeking to influence their outcome
- The absence of a specific rule which disqualifies paying for promotional activity
This response was made by the DRO prior to Saturday’s KCL Confessions endorsements.
The student who made the complaint about the KCL Confessions’ ‘endorsement fee’ spoke anonymously to Roar:
“I made the complaint to raise this process of paying for endorsement with KCLSU – whilst not prohibited in campaigning, candidates are capped on their expenses. If it was therefore confirmed KCL Confessions were charging candidates, and a candidate endorsed by them filed that they spent all their campaign budget on flyers, they would have gained an unfair advantage in the election.
To me this breaks two of the fair and free KCLSU elections principles – that it threatens the democratic legitimacy of the election, and more importantly it’s an unfair material advantage gained by one candidate over another. I was hoping therefore if candidates were charged, that the KCLSU Elections team could verify everything was above board when expenses were returned.Anonymous complainee
I find it concerning KCLSU’s response included reference to the anonymity of the account – as an example of this in the past we had instances of negative campaigning back in 2021 when Instagram account @ronforpres ran a negative campaigning tactic against every candidate for President, which wasn’t stopped. External influences on our elections should be stopped and their impacts on elections investigated, given social media is such an integral part to getting the word out about these elections.”
Roar also contacted the Union for comment.
“KCLSU Elections and the election principles are overseen by the Returning Officer (RO) and Deputy Retuning Officer (DRO) as outlined in bye-law 5.2.:
KCLSU Spokesperson
‘5.2. The Returning Officer is responsible for the conduct and administration of KCLSU Elections and will take sole responsibility for the interpretation of these bye-laws’.
The RO and DRO are external to KCLSU and King’s and are appointed as outlined in bye-law 1.25.:
‘1.25. The Returning Officer and Deputy Returning Officer (where deemed necessary) shall be appointed annually by King’s College London, subject to consultation with the Trustees’, and all ‘Complaints will be considered by the Deputy Returning Officer’ as outlined in bye-law 5.21.
The RO and DRO have sole responsibility for interpreting the elections principles – two of which are that ‘elections should be free’ and ‘elections should be fair’ as per the above bye-laws and are independent to KCLSU.”