Should a charity be allowed to use charitable donations (and charitable tax reliefs) to try and change people’s minds? And should an organisation that dedicates itself mostly to campaigning be allowed to call itself a charity?
These are the questions that came up recently in a Parliamentary select committee that dealt partly but not entirely with the controversial question of the Plymouth Brethren and their charitable status.
In truth, it’s a very thorny question, and wherever you position yourself, there seems to be a different answer.
In the Public Affairs Select Committee two weeks ago, two Conservative MPs – Robert Halfon and Charlie Elphicke – were eloquent in their criticism of charities that spent most of their money on campaigning, lobbying and advertising.
But at the same committee, the same MPs spoke out strongly in favour of the right of religious organisations (specifically, in this case, the Plymouth Brethren) to proselytise in the street – to go out and persuade people to believe in God – to campaign, basically.
And they were highly critical of the Charity Commission for not considering this behaviour charitable. In addition, they evidently felt that extensive lobbying of themselves, carried out by the Plymouth Brethren, was an extremely good use of Brethren funds.
There doesn’t seem too much difference between campaigning for, say, rights for the homeless – whether lobbying MPs for tax breaks for shelters or handing out free food – and the “advancement of religion” – lobbying MPs for greater rights for religion or handing out Bibles; but the two seem to be treated very differently in the eyes of these two MPs.
This is a classic example of the principles many people, when arguing for or against lobbying by a particular organisation, tend to follow:
– I should be allowed to say what I like
– Anyone else should be allowed to say what they like so long as they agree with me
– No one should be allowed to campaign so much that they make a nuisance of themselves.
Messrs Elphicke and Halfon are far from unique in this. I’m certainly guilty of it, too. I find myself thinking that Stonewall, for example, should be allowed to use charitable cash to lobby for gay marriage, but that churches shouldn’t be allowed to lobby against it. I think national charities should be allowed to lobby MPs, but wish they weren’t allowed to invade my living rooms with hard-hitting advertising campaigns.
I think most people, to a greater extent than they realise, follow the three laws above – from the 84 per cent of our readers who in answer to a recent poll, said charities should have unlimited powers to lobby, to the people who write to the ASA to complain about NSPCC ads – which is what makes rules covering who should be able to say what so bloody hard to make.
So where does this leave us? What should the rules be for charitable lobbying?
I think I’d like to see two basic principles for campaigning and lobbying:
- All organisations should be able carry out a certain amount of campaigning, so long as they are representing their membership or beneficiaries
- Campaigning as a primary purpose should only be allowed when it is advancing the cause of those suffering poverty, disadvantage or discrimination.
This isn’t a million miles from where we are now, but it at least gives some structure to an argument that often seems to go round in circles. I’d be interested to hear any views.