Since the Lobbying Act was introduced, a range of high-profile charities have spoken out against the so-called gagging law. We’ve heard about how the new legislation will create a “chilling effect” across our sector – curtailing legitimate campaigning activities and reducing our ability to speak truth to power on the important issues affecting the people we support. But for me, the way the sector is responding to the new rules is dishonest.
Underlying the complaints is the suggestion that without legislation such as this act, all charities would be free to campaign publicly on key issues of concern to them, 100% of the time. But anyone who has ever held a campaigning role in a voluntary sector organisation will know this is not the case. Most charities have internal vested interests, which limit their ability to debate key issues in the external world, more than the Lobbying Act ever will.
I have worked in campaigning roles in the voluntary sector for more than 10 years and I’ve seen how funding streams can have an impact on the type of campaigning activities that are given the go-ahead.
When I worked for a charity funded entirely from public donations, important statements on issues were often not made publicly, out of fear that messages could be misconstrued and potentially lead to a reduction in financial support for the charity. This was despite the fact that increasing the public’s understanding of the issues involved could ultimately have furthered our cause.
When working for a charity which relied on revenue from local authority service contracts, I was encouraged to criticise central government policies as much as I liked, but was disallowed from highlighting poor practice at a local level, for fear of offending clients and cutting off potential revenue streams.
It’s not only the funding arrangements of charities which can interfere with the messaging and timing of campaigns. A charity’s brand is one of its most important assets. Most charity leaders will invest significant time and money building a positive public image for their organisation, which resonates with members of the public and decision-makers, while attracting funding and support. But the need to protect and maintain a brand can lead to risk aversion.
On several occasions I’ve seen brilliant but potentially controversial campaigns and policy positions blocked by charity trustees or chief executives who opt instead to remain within the organisation’s comfort zone. If these senior leaders have a strong professional or personal reputation they are keen to protect, in my experience, this can make getting ideas signed off even more difficult.
Of course, I wouldn’t have based my career in the voluntary sector unless I thought charities were capable of achieving genuine change. Most voluntary sector policy and public affairs teams will have a positive impact on public opinion and policy, despite the internal vested interests in their organisations. And I understand that the self-censorship imposed from within charities is often done with the best of intentions. Charities need to think beyond the potential constraints caused by the Lobbying Act, and acknowledge the politics inside their own organisations, if they are genuinely concerned about their ability to speak out when they need to.
Confessions of a charity professional is the Guardian Voluntary Sector Network’s anonymous series where charity workers tell it how it is. If you would like to pitch us an idea, click here.
