2015 general election, for example, it censured four charities whose names appeared (by mistake, they later said) on a list of 5,000 organisations that signed a letter to The Times in support of the Conservative Party.13 In the next general election campaign, two years later, the right-leaning Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) was given ‘formal regulatory advice’ by the Commission about two publications, one of which proposed what should be in the Conservative Party manifesto, while the other criticised the Labour manifesto; Unity Group Wales, a charity supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, was told to take down Labour Party posters in Swansea; and the National Council of Hindu Temples, which e-mailed members suggesting they should support the Conservative Party, agreed to send a second e-mail asserting that the Council was politically neutral.14
Outside election periods, the Charity Commission concluded, in response to a complaint in 2010, that the Atlantic Bridge Research and Education Scheme was promoting the ‘special relationship’ between the UK and the US in a way that was not compatible with its charitable purpose of the advancement of education for the public benefit.15 The charity had created a Margaret Thatcher Lecture and an award called the Margaret Thatcher Medal of Freedom, and the Commission said it was apparent from the lectures and the recipients of the medal that the charity’s focus was on the late Baroness Thatcher’s view when she was prime minister that the so-called special relationship should be strengthened and promoted. ‘This suggests that the activities of the charity are promoting a political policy which is closely associated with the Conservative Party,’ the report said. Atlantic Bridge, founded by the Conservative MP and former cabinet minister Liam Fox, was told to ‘cease its current activities immediately’ and carry out a governance review. Fourteen months later, it decided to close.
In 2014, the international development charity Oxfam put out a tweet, with a picture embedded in it, to publicise its forthcoming report entitled Below the Breadline. The tweet showed a raging sea with the caption ‘A Perfect Storm, starring Zero Hours Contracts, High Prices, Benefits Cuts, Unemployment, Childcare Costs’. The Conservative MP Conor Burns replied to the tweet, saying that it amounted to ‘highly political advertising’ and he was going to complain to the Commission. The regulator accepted that the charity did not intend to act in a political way, but said it ‘should have done more to avoid any misperception of political bias by providing greater clarity and ensuring that the link to the Below the Breadline report was more obvious’.16
Think-tanks such as the IEA and Atlantic Bridge are often involved in spats about their charitable status. Another case happened in 2008, when the Charity Commission found that the Smith Institute, named after the late former Labour Party leader John Smith, was vulnerable to the perception that it was involved in party politics because it had frequently held seminars at the 11 Downing Street residence of the chancellor of the exchequer.17 A dispute ensued, and two years later the Institute decided to stop being a charity. In 2014, the Commission concluded that the left-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research, in its report The Condition of Britain, had exposed itself to the perception that it supported the development of Labour Party policy.18
Other restrictions on charity campaigning
The 2008 guidance has remained in force, despite periodic suggestions it should be tightened. Fresh restrictions on charity campaigning were, however, imposed by another route. These apply only in the 12 months before elections and are contained in the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act of 2014, known as the Lobbying Act for short.19 Its purpose is ostensibly to prevent wealthy individuals and corporations influencing the democratic process, but it affects all organisations that might campaign, including charities. It requires them to register with and report to the Electoral Commission as ‘non-party campaigners’ if they spend more than £20,000 in England, or £10,000 in other parts of the UK, on ‘regulated activities’ that can ‘reasonably be regarded as intended to influence voters’. There are strict limits on how much registered campaigners can spend on regulated activities – canvassing, public events, transport costs and so on.
The law caused consternation and uncertainty among charities. Does spending include staff costs? What qualifies as communication with the public, as opposed to supporters? How should costs be calculated when working in coalition with other charities? The 300 pages of guidance produced by the Electoral Commission to answer these and other questions was pronounced ‘incomprehensible’ by Sir Stephen Bubb, at the time leader of Acevo.20 For the 2015 general election, there were 12 charities among 68 non-party campaigners registered with the Electoral Commission, including the gay rights charity Stonewall, the RSPCA, the Woodland Trust and the Salvation Army, all of which were familiar with campaigning work and big enough to take the extra bureaucracy in their stride. But there was also evidence that the law was having a chilling effect. “Lots of my clients are downing tools,” said Chris Priestley, a charity specialist at the law firm Withers. “They have taken the view that with the administrative burden of trying to track spend, and the fear of being on the wrong side of the law, the simplest thing is not to campaign.”21
After the election, the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, set up by a broad coalition of charities and NGOs to investigate concerns about the Act and chaired by the former Bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries, concluded:22
It had a negative impact on charities and campaign groups speaking out on crucial and legitimate issues ahead of the election … Charities and campaign groups reported to us that they found it difficult to know what was and was not regulated activity, and as a result many activities aimed at raising awareness and generating discussion ahead of the election have not taken place.
The government asked the Conservative peer Lord (Robin) Hodgson to review the workings of the Act, but cited lack of parliamentary time when it declined to act on his proposals.23 The Labour Party pledged to repeal the Act, which remains a source of grievance for many charities and infrastructure organisations, including the NCVO, Acevo and CAF.
The government followed up the Lobbying Act with further initiatives on campaigning which charities found even more worrying. Shortly before the 2015 election, the then secretary of state for communities and local government, Eric Pickles, told Parliament that the IEA, one of the think-tanks mentioned above, had “undertaken extensive research on so-called ‘sock puppets’”:24
“They have exposed the extensive practice of taxpayers’ money being given to pressure groups and supposed charities, in turn being used to lobby the government and parliament for more money and more regulation. This is an issue which needs to be addressed. My department has set an example to the rest of Whitehall by amending our standard grant agreements to impose a new anti-lobbying, anti-sock puppet clause.”
After the election returned the Conservatives with a small majority, the junior Cabinet Office minister at the time, Matt Hancock MP, emulated Pickles by announcing that all government departments would be required to insert a clause in all grant agreements, spelling out that the funding could not be used for activity intended to influence Parliament, government or political parties.25 His statement again referenced the IEA research ‘exposing the practice of taxpayers’ money given to pressure groups being diverted to fund lobbying rather than good causes or public services’. It went on: ‘Taxpayers’ money must be spent on improving people’s lives and spreading opportunities, not wasted on the farce of government lobbying government.’
When it was pointed out in Parliament by the then shadow charities minister, Anna Turley, that Hancock had recently received a donation of £4,000 from Neil Record, founder of a currency management company and chair of the IEA, Hancock replied that he had had no discussions with the IEA about the announcement and “it is right that taxpayers’ money should be spent on the things for which it was intended, not on ensuring that lobbyists can take politicians out for lunch”.26 The Cabinet Office also issued a statement
