Why charities should not support political parties

Jane Norton writes:

The first reason has been explicitly given by the Charities Services. A charity’s funds should only be used to advance a charity’s purposes. Supporting a political party or candidate is not consistent with a charitable purpose. This is because not all purposes of political parties are charitable. They have a range of policies that go far beyond those that can be linked to recognised charitable purposes such as health or education. 

In Waipareira’s case, it also led to a private (not public or charitable) benefit to its chief executive. Let’s not forget also that most of Waipareira’s funding comes from contracts with government to provide social services. This, combined with the tax benefits that come with being a registered charity, means that it is effectively funded by the state and taxpayer. Donations to a political party result in money intended for non-partisan charitable purposes aimed at benefiting the public being redirected to further the interests of a partisan non-charitable organisation.

The second reason charities must not support political parties is that it compromises their independence. A hallmark of charity is that it is independent of government. This independence is crucial to any democracy because it enables charities to hold government to account and provide diverse (and dissenting) viewpoints. A charity that becomes intertwined with a political party blurs the boundary between government and the charity sector which means it loses its distinct and important role.

I’ve bolded the key aspects. An interesting comment on the article by Peter Davis:

This action is long overdue. The truth is that various government entities – including the Serious Fraud Office, Department of Internal Affairs – have had serious reservations about the operating model at Waipareira but have always held back, presumably because of the political connections of the agency, its ostensible purpose in assisting Maori and other disadvantaged groups, and the bold and aggressive manner of its leadership. It is a real worry that it has taken the concerted efforts of one journalist at the NZ Herald to get us to a position that has been in the offing for almost two decades.

Agreed that it shouldn’t have taken 20 years for action.