Political lobbying firm CT Group is facing mounting calls to disclose details of payments made to journalists for favourable stories, following a four-month Guardian investigation that revealed lobbyists offered cash incentives to place apparently independent articles in British national newspapers.

CT Group lobbyists told an undercover reporter they had paid journalists to place stories that appeared independent in newspapers, and offered hundreds of pounds in cash incentives to place pieces for a property industry client. In return, CT Group said it would have increased editorial control over the resulting articles, The Guardian reported on July 23, 2026.

The Guardian began its investigation after CT Group approached a freelance journalist offering payment to pitch a piece about the Building Safety Regulator to a British national newspaper. The regulator was established in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire, which killed 72 people. The initial story, published July 22, 2026, reported that CT Group had paid journalists for favourable pieces connected to Boris Johnson.

CT Group, which operates with a £40m-a-year turnover, was co-founded by Lynton Crosby, who previously served as a campaign strategist for both David Cameron and Boris Johnson. Crosby is the firm's executive chairman, The Australian reported on July 21, 2026. The firm's recent client roster includes Philip Morris and the owner of Manchester City football club.

CT Group responded publicly with a statement: "We do not comment publicly on work we do for clients and we therefore cannot respond to the specific allegations you have made." The firm claimed events had been "deliberately mischaracterised" and stated it did not engage the undercover journalist.

The response has done little to quiet demands from across the political and regulatory landscape. Alastair McCapra, chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, called lobbyists paying journalists for apparently independent articles "an attack on the ethics of journalism, public relations and, indeed, on democracy." CT Group is not a member of CIPR, which limits the institute's ability to take disciplinary action. Jemimah Steinfeld, chief executive of Index on Censorship, called on CT Group to launch an internal investigation.

On the parliamentary front, Luke Taylor, a Liberal Democrat MP on the public administration and constitutional affairs committee, called for "full transparency on when money has changed hands when it comes to reporting." Rupa Huq, a Labour MP on the Commons media select committee, said: "We need more transparency in lobbying which almost feels like the wild west, such is the lack of regulation."

Steve Goodrich, head of research and investigations at Transparency International UK, said the investigation raises serious questions about CT Group's conduct and how widespread hidden arrangements are across the lobbying industry.

The broader context here is a regulatory framework that has long faced criticism for its gaps. During a House of Commons debate on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill on September 3, 2013, an MP observed that the Bill "does not even capture Lynton Crosby" — a remark that has aged into a pointed symbol of the disjuncture between lobbying legislation and the practices of high-profile operatives. The UK's lobbying register, established under that legislation, has been repeatedly characterised by transparency advocates as narrower in scope than comparable regimes in the United States or the EU, where lobbying expenditure and client relationships face more granular disclosure requirements.

CT Group's international footprint adds another dimension. The firm worked on an undisclosed political influence campaign in Zambia on behalf of mining interests alongside election-related work, Global Witness reported on July 21, 2026. That revelation, combined with the payments-to-journalists investigation, paints a picture of a firm that operates across multiple jurisdictions with what critics describe as insufficient transparency at every level.

What sets this story apart from routine lobbying scandals is the direct conduit it exposes between paid advocacy and editorial content. Paying journalists to produce pieces that appear independent is not simply aggressive public relations — it strikes at the credibility mechanism that distinguishes earned media coverage from paid placement. When readers cannot tell whether a bylined article reflects the journalist's own reporting or a lobbyist's editorial direction, the informational value of the entire outlet is compromised. The property industry client at the centre of the undercover approach had a specific stake: shaping coverage of the Building Safety Regulator, an institution created in direct response to one of Britain's deadliest fire disasters.

Whether the pressure from MPs, civil society groups, and the CIPR translates into legislative action remains an open question. The calls for transparency span two select committees, but neither has yet indicated formal hearings. What is clear is that the Guardian's findings have given new ammunition to those who have long argued the lobbying regime is not fit for purpose — and placed CT Group, a firm long accustomed to operating behind the scenes, squarely in the spotlight.