A bad day for charities

Perhaps you don't follow the work of the Charity Commission that carefully. And ordinarily neither do I.

But they've just done something very important. And rather worrying.

They have issued new guidance on the political activities of charities. I believe they have made it far easier for charities to become primarily political organisations and vice versa.

This decision - which just happens to reflect the political desire of the Government and a long standing left campaigning agenda - threatens the integrity of charitable status.

Until now charities haven't been allowed to make political campaigning - say campaigning to change a law - their "dominant" activity. Such campaigning must be "ancillary" to their charitable work.

The Commission argues that this wording was confusing and particularly difficult for small charities.

I disagree. The meaning of the words "dominant" and "ancillary" is quite clear. There is no confusion. The Commission is trying (or says that is trying) to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

The "solution" they have chosen, politicises what should be non-political bodies.

In future, the Commission rules:

Political activity cannot be the continuing and sole activity of a charity.

This is very different from the current rules. And much more permissive.

Instead of insisting that political activity cannot be dominant they are now only insisting that it not be the sole activity.

There is also a crucial (and I think deliberate) ambiguity. This involves the use of the word "and". Does the guideline mean political activity can be neither continuing or sole, or does it mean it could be one or the other but not both?

This ambiguity is designed, I believe, to allow some charities to make political campaigning their sole activity for a period.

This is a very bad day for the charitable sector.

Comments

[Dave B]

A bad day for the charitable sector, but I fancy it may be good one for Labour Party funds.

[SJH]

What a farce this Government is. Educating children is not of itself "charitable" but political campaigning is?

What about the Smith Institute, Gordon's friendly "independent think-tank" (its own generous self-description) which found a way to subsidise Ed Balls's income when he was running for Parliament and has held events at Downing Street? And this was before the supposed liberalisation.

[Whig]

Canadian political activists were, a few years ago, attempting to change the definition of charity, such that 100% of its revenues could be used for `advocacy.'

As a `compromise,' it suggested that `only' 50% of revenues be allowed for use in politicking. But since admin costs are often 50 or more percent of any charity, this is in effect saying that charities should be political organizations.

The whole point is to form `charities', with tax-free status, in order to politic. In effect, the public would be paying for the right of `charities' to be political entities.

It didn't get anywhere here, hopefully it won't in the U.K. either

thanks

[Sepoy Agent]

Agree with Dave B.

I'm one of four trustees of a small local youth charity, running a drop-in centre, confidential counselling and school holiday activities.

We like the fact that it is widely known that we do not engage in political activity as a charity, particularly as at least three of us are Conservatives. It will be bad for the public view of our charity and charities generally if the view gets about that charities are political pressure groups

[Frank Upton]

This will enable public bodies to misuse more of our money subsidising political activities rather than doing their jobs.

It will also give another excuse to those of us who could afford to give more to charities, but don't, in addition to "They spend it all on admin" and "They spend it all on advertsing".