A recent story
in the Times, and picked
up by the Daily Mail, highlights the attempts by the Charity Commission to
make us declare spend on political campaigning.
It has been roundly criticised across the sector and I trust
the Commission will now drop these proposals. We would be very happy to discuss
with the Commission how we , as a sector,
can make our accounting more transparent and work with them on the trend
towards impact reporting which demonstrates to the public the impact of their
donations.
It's impact that matters , not the sterile reporting of
where money is spent. This is where we can tell the story of what we do with
the money we receive , whether from government contracts or from the public or
corporate donors. We should have a common position with the regulator on how we
tell that story – but unfortunately we have got divisive proposals that add
more red tape at best and at worst make us suspicious that the real purpose of
the Commission is ideological not
regulatory.
When prominent members of the Commission are publicly
quoted criticising our essential role in campaigning then it is hardly
surprising we suspect the intentions of these proposals. Let’s hope that the
many submissions that have been made to them will bear fruit and a rethink in
how we do this.
Meanwhile let me reproduce the letter
I wrote to the Times yesterday
which makes our case concisely.
Sir, Stephen
Pollard (Aug 26) suggests that charities’ campaigning is partisan, and that
they are not transparent. For centuries charities have spoken out against
injustice and suffering. In law, charities have a duty to work to alleviate the
problems they tackle, and to try to prevent them arising at all. Charity law
reflects this by allowing them to speak out on “political” issues in line with
their mission.
The Charity
Commission recently proposed requiring charities to declare how much they spend
on “political campaigning”. A drive toward greater transparency is good for
charities and good for society — and most if not all are working to be highly
transparent.
However, the
attempt to separate “political” campaigning from their other work is at best
illogical. At worst, it panders to an infantilised debate that gives the false
impression that campaigning is an optional extra to a charity’s work with
beneficiaries.
Charity campaigning
may be political but this does not make it partisan. Those in power are
entitled to object to what is said, but not to charities’ right to say it. Charities
speak for their beneficiaries, never for political parties.
The commission’s
proposals must be seen in the context of the government’s Lobbying Act and of
other attacks on civil society’s right to speak truth to power. It is no
surprise that charity leaders speak out in defence of their beneficiaries. We
should be glad of it. Society and our democracy would certainly be poorer if
charities were muzzled.
Sir Stephen Bubb
Association of
Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations