Many charities have chosen to abandon or alter their campaigning activities because they are afraid of the effects of the Lobbying Act, law firm Bates Wells Braithwaite has said in its response to a review of the Act.
The third party campaigning review, written jointly by BWB partners Melanie Carter and Rosamund McCarthy (pictured), says the “current regime is burdensome and inconsistent with other, more favourable approaches to regulation”.
“It is the strong view of BWB that there has been a chilling effect on campaigning by third parties in general, and charities in particular, as a direct result of the 2014 Act,” the report says.
“BWB has had a great many conversations with a range of organisations about whether proposed activities might be caught by the legislation.
"Many clients have chosen to abandon, or to alter, proposed campaigning activities in order to remove risk of triggering the registration requirement. These organisations have been motivated by deep felt concern that registration may (however inaccurately) lead to a public perception that they are politically biased.”
The review was sumbitted to Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, the man leading the government's review of the Lobbying Act. It urges him to limit regulation of non-party campaigners to those that are able to spend large amounts of money on activities directly intended to influence election outcomes – rather than a campaign a “third party might reasonably regard as their intention”.
According to Carter and McCarty, this would bring charity campaigning rules into line with referendum and local election campaigning guidelines. It would also free charities from the Lobbying Act’s regulatory constraints – instead making campaign material subject to charity law’s requirements of political independence.
The review also urges a shorter time frame under which charities would be subject to electoral regulation.
“The present regulated period of one year prior to a general election is too long," it says. "We advocate a 16-week regulated period for all elections, as for the Scottish Independence Referendum.”
“Currently, far from enhancing democracy, the length of the regulated period could be eroding the rich diversity of dialogue which civil society organisations bring to public debate.”
BWB has also called for the changes to the regulation of solicited campaign material.
A statement posted on its website to accompany the review yesterday says: “Where individuals have asked to receive communications from a non-party, those communications should not be regulated. This would bring the rules more into line with those applying to referendum campaigning.
“Registered parties are not required to include staff costs in calculating their spending. Requiring third parties to do so creates an arbitrary and artificial distinction between non parties and registered parties, imposing an arduous burden on third parties.”
A further point raised by the review is the regulation of digital and online campaigning.
“As digital and online campaigning grow, regulation should seriously reconsider arbitrary distinctions drawn between media organisations (such as print newspapers) and other forms of publishing, including online and digital,” said BWB.
Campaigning must be “treated equally”, the law firm states. The fact that newspapers and periodicals are currently “able to spend unlimited amounts on influencing election results without being regulated… seems increasingly unjustifiable in modern society,” it said.
