Political parties, candidates and non-party campaigners are vital to a healthy democracy and we encourage active participation by campaigners. Charities are an important part of this process and make a significant contribution; indeed, they may undertake a wide variety of campaigning activities as part of their work.
Charity Fantasyland? Not at all. That’s the introduction to Charities and Campaigning, a handbook published by the Electoral Commission in the UK to help charities understand both legal and regulatory requirements and expectations for best practices when they participate in political campaigns.
That’s right. In the UK, as indicated by the introduction above, charities are welcomed into the political arena and into specific election campaigns as “non-party campaigners.” The category comprises “individuals or organizations that campaign at elections but are not standing as political parties or candidates,” and plan to spend at least £20,000 (England) or £10,000 (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) in elections for the UK, European or Scottish Parliament or the Welsh or Northern Ireland Assembly.
It gets better. The handbook specifically reassures charities that they may publicly encourage support for specific policies associated with a political party as long as they do so in order to further their charitable purpose, and as long as they don’t advocate for the party itself. And the example of a charity behaving properly under the regulations begins, “During a regulated period [an election] an environmental charity campaigns on climate change in furtherance of its charitable purposes . . .” (emphasis mine).
Miserable, muddled, muzzled
You couldn’t ask for a greater contrast to the muddled atmosphere surrounding Canadian charities these days. Unlike Canadian for-profit corporations, charities may not publicly express a political opinion. They may not urge members of the public to call for political action on issues that might make our society better. Faith communities are discovering that they may not even urge members to vote based on their religious values if those values lead them to oppose current government policy.
This despite the fact that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees both freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of expression!
CRA against sane speed limits, seniors’ bus fares, values-driven tourism?
Some argue that there is actually more latitude in the vaguely worded regulations about the permissible activities to which charities may devote a small portion (10 per cent) of their resources. But that’s not what Canada Revenue Agency’s own website says. Consider this transcript from a brief video embedded in the site to help charities understand what constitutes political (i.e., forbidden) activity:
A political activity is considered to be any activity that tries to change, retain, or oppose a law, decision or policy of any government. For example:
However, if a charity decides not to engage the public and instead makes a representation only to government, this is generally considered charitable, not political. This allows charities to provide their expertise directly to public officials and elected representatives, as long as representations to government remain a minor focus of the charity and support its charitable purposes (and if the charities’ reports, briefs and policy recommendations are deleted within minutes of their meetings, no one is any the wiser).
Audit hell, translation nightmares, partner betrayal
As a consequence of this mindset, charities devoting a tiny percentage of a total budget equal to campaign expenses for a handful of Members of Parliament must assign their one or two staff members to the onerous, lengthy (up to two years) and often unreasonable demands of CRA auditors.
For example, the tax agency demanded that a small Vancouver charity, CoDevelopment Canada, translate every Spanish document it receives from its partners in Latin America, even taxi receipts, into French or English.
According to a widely-reported account, foreign aid charities are banding together to seek a dialogue with the CRA. Canadian Council for International Cooperation Executive Director Julia Sanchez explained, “Foreign-aid charities in Canada are also required to report on the political activities of their partner organizations even in countries with weak human rights protections, a demand that can put lives at risk.”
Other foreign development charities have been required to tightly control every dollar spent in foreign countries rather than empowering indigenous partner organizations to run and account for projects, Sanchez says.
Don’t even think of preventing poverty
And in an action that would be risible if its implications were not so frightening, the CRA told Oxfam Canada that it can no longer include the “prevention” of poverty in its charitable objects. It may “alleviate” existing poverty, but it can no longer work to ensure that people don’t become poor in the first place.
It is clear what the Harper government wants from charities—silence, passivity, and a return to the mindless do-good-after-the-fact approach that ignores root causes of social issues.
Donors, volunteers vote every day; Harper wants it stopped
In the evidence-free zone of our federal government, any knowledge about the causes of environmental degradation, any statistics about the number of hungry children, homeless people, and polluted waterways, and any insights into why it’s all happening are a hazard. Charities have both the numbers and the insights, thanks to increased knowledge sharing, collaborative work and sector-wide reflection. Therefore, they are a threat and must be silenced.
What the Harper government fails to understand is that a democratic government is always accountable. In a democracy, all persons and all organizations should be free to challenge, criticize, present refuting evidence, and urge Parliament and citizens to adopt different policies and actions. An active charitable sector is a democratic right, a way in which we can vote with every contributed dollar and hour for the society we want as often as we want between elections.
This donor would be only too happy to see charities accorded the respect and rights that are protected by law in the UK. That country’s charity regulators have found a suitable compromise between freedom of action in the public policy realm and the appropriate regulation of charitable purposes funded by donor dollars. With that model to guide us, it should be simple to create a similarly positive climate for Canadian charities—when the government’s goodwill is there.
Should donor dollars be used in such ways? Let the donors decide. Or in terms that Mr. Harper would understand, let the market decide. Canada desperately needs the expertise and compassion of Canada’s charities informing its government’s policies and actions.
For a timeline of key events, see http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-revenue-agency-s-political-activity-audits-of-charities-1.2728023
Contact Janet or yes, you can follow her on Twitter, @JanetGadeski
