What’s Wrong with Shutting Down Nonprofit Advocacy?
By Liz Sutherland, ONN Director of Policy; and Alexa Briggs, CCVO Director, Policy & Research
We need to talk about policy and (non)partisanship
There’s a troubling trend drifting up from south of the border and it’s not just COVID-19 case counts. We’re talking about the tendency to think of policy and political issues in partisan terms only. As in the Liberals “own” child care, the NDP “own” poverty reduction, the Green Party “owns” the environment, and the Conservatives “own” small business tax breaks. If a group praises or opposes a policy, they are automatically labelled a partisan supporter.
Political parties don’t own policy issues. Governments don’t own policy issues. It is possible – in fact, essential – that groups outside government play an active role in public policy debates in order for our democracy to function. Nonprofits are often the representatives for important policy issues in society, and, as a sector, we can’t let those issues become partisan.
Governments make, implement, and enforce policy. But it is the people – the citizens – who should drive it. And nonprofits often act as conduits for issues, particularly for those who are underrepresented or marginalized. Nonprofits have a responsibility to hold our ground on policy advocacy. We cannot allow political parties to claim ownership over policy issues and thereby coerce nonprofits into silence, over fear of accusations of partisanship. Silence on important issues is acquiescence to a status quo that is failing too many people, as well as the planet.
Governments and political parties take various positions on policy issues and undertake plans to address those issues – but that does not make those actual issues partisan or proprietary. Nonprofits hold expertise, experience, and knowledge about issues from an important perspective and our contributions to policy advocacy should not be limited by the positions that governments or political parties may hold on policy issues.
In other words, simply because a nonprofit’s advocacy may align with the policy position of a political party does not mean that the nonprofit is being partisan in expressing support for that policy position. The important distinction here is that the reason for support must be based on evidence, and not based on loyalty to a particular party.
Polarization
In the last two decades, there has been a documented trend towards increased social and political polarization. American politics in particular have fallen prey to this phenomenon, which has been defined by growing intolerance and division.
In Canada, the Digital Democracy Project (a partnership between the Public Policy Forum and the Max Bell School of Public Policy) has analyzed the trend by which ideological differences have fed hyper-partisanship.
Polarization is a tactic as much as a trend, serving partisans more than anyone else. If policy issues are turned into debates –where the extreme positions exist as the only options it can create a toxic environment where people simply disengage. And no wonder, as it becomes remarkably unpleasant to discuss issues or to have reasoned debate under these terms. When people disengage, it helps partisans and political parties evade scrutiny of their ideas. It also advances the false notion that there are only two possible positions, and it creates a false sense that the majority of public opinion exists only in the extreme.
Many nonprofits are particularly tempted to disengage because of an environment that is fraught with the potential for controversy and the risk of being labelled as partisan. But this doesn’t let our sector off the hook from participating in public dialogue. In fact, it makes it even more imperative that we engage in these issues – issues in which our organizations have particular knowledge, expertise, and experience. We have to present a reasonable case, focus on facts, and bring back the importance of evidence-based argument.
The role of the nonprofit sector in upholding democracy:
Playing a fundamental role in democracy might not be the first thing that comes to mind when we think about the value of nonprofits in society, but it is a core function of the sector. Nonprofits have vital importance in any functioning democracy in:
Nonprofits often have an intimate understanding of issues but fall short of sharing that knowledge publicly, when there is a potentially huge benefit to society in doing so. The sector has an obligation to support citizens in pursuit of greater and more informed democratic participation by sharing knowledge, expertise, and experience, and in encouraging action where necessary. “In short, nonprofits have a key—and too-often neglected—role to play in our democracy, in helping people understand the basics of a public-interest issue, the steps that can be taken to fix it, and the role that citizens can play.” The value in distilling and sharing reliable and credible analyses of government and political party policies should not be underestimated in supporting democratic engagement. It is the very fact that nonprofits are often so intent on remaining nonpartisan that they gain trust by promoting issues with information that has not been spun or manipulated to push a particular outcome[1].
The rules clearly permit nonprofits and charities to advocate — but this right is often challenged
Some organizations may not be aware that the old rules that restricted charities’ ability to engage in (nonpartisan) advocacy are no longer in force. Some groups may need to register if they spend significant sums before an election, but most can continue their advocacy activities as usual.
Many in the sector breathed a sigh of relief in 2018 when the Income Tax Act was amended to remove the “10 percent rule” that limited the ability of charitable nonprofits to participate in public policy debate. There are still rules about remaining nonpartisan and sticking to advocacy on your stated mission/purpose (as there should be) but there is no limit to how much of their resources charities can spend on advocacy.
Sadly, this change took place after many charities endured years of intrusive and time-consuming audits under the Canada Revenue Agency’s Political Activities Audit Program. It was only in 2019 that the Government of Canada decided to drop its appeal of the court ruling that prompted the change in law.
Furthermore, the sector continues to face challenges to its participation in public policy debates. For instance:
Misleading media coverage led to mass confusion in the 2019 federal election about the rules for nonprofits and charities in participating in public policy debates. Elections Canada has since led consultations on the framework for third-party advertising during elections that we hope will fix the problem.
The Government of Alberta’s Public Inquiry into Environmental Groups, launched in July 2019, has created a new advocacy chill in the province. The Inquiry has caused many groups to divert precious resources toward defending their philanthropic funding, their public benefit missions, and most of all their right to participate in public policy debates on an issue of fundamental importance to our society – namely the climate crisis.
Advocating through Polarization
Despite these threats to nonprofits, and perhaps even increasingly because of these threats, nonprofits have a responsibility to stake out and boldly claim ownership of a role in democracy.
Alberta
For example, in Alberta, the Defend Alberta Parks campaign has been an illustration of nonprofits engaging in a nonpartisan drive to raise awareness and build support for a cause.
Under the ‘Optimizing Alberta Parks’ plan, the Alberta provincial government had a plan to remove 164 provincial parks from the system (delisting) and to fully or partially close another 20, which was publicly available as of February 2020. An initial release from the government about this plan did reference the sale of parks but was subsequently removed. The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Alberta Environmental Network started a ‘Defend Alberta Parks’ campaign to raise awareness on the potential loss of these parks, building on their considerable work already done in bringing this issue to the forefront of public attention. This campaign raised the ire of the government with the following comment from Premier Jason Kenney on October 10:
And UCP MLA Nick Milliken stated the following on Twitter on October 10:
Despite this derision, the nonprofits leading this campaign carried on, and perhaps arguably gained even more attention. As of December 2020, the Defend Alberta Parks campaign has seen more than 17,000 signs distributed around the province and more than 23,000 letters to MLAs. In an apparent reversal, the Alberta government announced on December 22, 2020 that parks will not be closed or delisted. While some questions remain about the details of this announcement, it is a huge victory to see a policy reversal of this kind from a government not known for its willingness to change course.
The Defend Alberta Parks campaign is an example of successful nonpartisan advocacy, which took some courage from a couple of nonprofits and some understanding of the rules, and had a big payoff. CPAWS and AEN raised awareness by promoting facts, staying resolutely focused on the issue, and using bold tactics. Even though when this campaign began, the nonprofits leading the charge likely had no realistic expectation of seeing a policy reversal, it was achieved in large part due to their efforts. Their initiative has also had the added benefit of:
galvanizing support across the political spectrum;
generating a curated list of supporters;
raising their organizations’ profiles; and
a fundraising effort that attracted support.
This example highlights how nonprofits play an important role in democracy through information sharing, increasing public awareness, and advocacy. It shows how issues can transcend political affiliation; some might be tempted to see environmental issues as those of ‘the left’ but they are issues that are important to Canadians, regardless of political affiliation, and this campaign leveraged passion for protected natural areas. It shows that even with adverse responses, there may be more to be gained than lost in policy advocacy efforts.
Ontario
Environmental nonprofits in Ontario are also facing a challenging context for engaging in advocacy. Environmental protections are a prime example of why nonprofits must advocate to achieve their missions. Two years ago, Ontario saw a similar battle to the Alberta Parks issue when Bill 66 threatened the Greenbelt around the Greater Toronto Area. A broad range of environmental groups organized a campaign to stop Bill 66 and eventually won the hard-fought battle -- aided by several municipal councils that opposed the move.
More recently, Ontario saw the passage of Bill 229, which included significant measures watering down three key conservation acts: the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act.
Bill 229 follows a series of measures that collectively erode environmental protection and which were implemented without adequate consultation. Another bill (Bill 156) was recently passed that criminalizes certain forms of animal welfare advocacy and infringes on the rights of First Nations. During the pandemic, omnibus legislation has been passed in two weeks with no opportunity for standing committee review or consultation. These bills included provisions that were unrelated to the pandemic response.
Since 2016 when Ontario’s Bill 2 was passed, nonprofits that spend $500 or more to advocate during an election period (or six months before a fixed-date election) on a provincial issue that a political party happens to take a position on must register as third-party advertisers.
Opportunity knocks
Canada will likely have a federal election in 2021 if the trend of minority governments lasting about 18 months holds. Provincial elections are around the corner in Ontario, Alberta, and many other provinces. What will your nonprofit platform look like? How can you mobilize the communities you serve to advocate on issues that matter to them? In between elections, of course, there are opportunities for everyday advocacy. Flex that muscle! Because public policy is too important to leave to political parties alone.
CCVO media contact:
Marisa Barber
Manager, Marketing & Communications
mbarber@calgarycvo.org
ONN media contact:
Sarah Matsushita
Director of Communications and Engagement
sarah@theonn.ca
[1] There are, of course, nonprofits that advance partisan agendas. For example, Political Action Committees (PACs) are incorporated as nonprofits. We are referring in this piece to public benefit nonprofits that have made a commitment to remain nonpartisan. For more: https://theonn.ca/our-work/our-regulatory-environment/public-benefit-nonprofits/