Should charities refuse donations on political grounds?

[GrarG]

I was reading this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -charities

And it got me thinking; should charitable organisations refuse donations because they disagree politically or morally with the one making the donation?

Quick overview if you don't want to read link; semi-famous hooligan turned anti-islam campaigner Tommy Robinson is running in the EU elections in order to stick the middle finger up at all our closest friends and allies on the continent. In a rare display of goodwill / cynical ploy to improve his image he has offered up his (potential) MEP salary to charities that work with victims of the 'asian' child rape gangs that plague our country. The charities are having none of this, and refuse to accept the money:

“Those who have suffered sexual and physical abuse were failed by those who should have protected them. But Tommy Robinson is no ally for the children he claims to stand up for. Tommy doesn’t care about the rights of women and girls – he is exploiting the pain of survivors and their families to fuel racist hate for his own gain.”

While the above may be true (or not, maybe he does care, I'm not a mind reader), cynical ploy or no it's essentially a charity turning down a considerable donation (potentially several hundred thousand Euro over a 5 year term) simply because they don't like the guy giving it.

Personally I'm struggling to see a benefit to this. The money will be used as they wish and presumably will be of great help to the people who the charity wants to help. Accepting money from someone is not and should not be seen as tacit agreement with them or their cause and charitable organisations should remain apolitical in general, focusing purely on doing what good they can with whatever the universe gives them to do it. Besides if this clown does get elected then at least some good will come of it.

What do you think NSG? I added a poll but it's not very good tbh.

[Uan aa Boa]

Speaking as someone who works in the UK charity sector, refusing this money is a no brainer. An organisation simply can't project itself as being on the side of abused and victimised people if it's linked to someone who promotes abuse and victimisation. There's too much risk of the reputational damage driving away people who need the support and compromising more valuable donations. Robinson is toxic and not to be touched with a barge pole. Charities are under zero obligation to help him out with his publicity stunt.

[Old Tyrannia]

I think it's entirely the decision of the charities in question, but refusing a sizable donation due to not wanting to be associated with the donor sounds very much like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. I understand the charity's desire to make a principled stand, but that principled stand does little for the children in their care. On the other hand, there's another question here about whether it's appropriate for an electoral candidate to make this kind of an announcement- it could easily be regarded as a kind of bribery or emotional blackmail; "if you don't vote for me, you're denying the children this money!" Obviously individuals in paid public positions have every right to dispose of their income any way that they wish, including donating however much they wish to charity. However, I would argue that making this sort of pledge prior to an election ought to be seen as an unethical attempt to influence people's vote.

[Sanctum and Ultima]

Nope, but we should hide the fact that (s)he donated something to our charity.

[Exxosia]

Considering how the UK is a state where the media portrayal of anything is more important than the realities, I think the charity should be allowed to refuse the donation as any help the money would bring is less important than keeping up appearances and losing a potentially larger amount of donations.

If this was almost any other country, I would say they should accept the donations.

[Esternial]

If an asshole offers you X amount of his money, take it. That's X amount of money in potentially asshole-ish things that you just prevented.

Accepting a donation doesn't enter you into an obligation not to call the donator a dick.

[Abarri]

Charities might not be in a good position to refuse donations on political grounds. The donation helps charities carry out whatever mission they have. As Old Tyrannia pointed out, the principled stand is not enough to care for beneficiaries. They're nonprofit firms anyway with proceeds used for operations and not income; I don't think the donor's identity, character, or beliefs matter that much.

A better idea would be to refuse donations on the grounds of its nature, i.e. charities should reject donations of illegal or questionable origin. Maybe the money has been laundered, or the donation itself is unsuitable for operations (e.g. giving junk food for a food drive).

[Caracasus]

We need to turn this around. Tommy Robinson - if he was genuinely concerned about children who had been abused at all - could donate money anonymously.

There's zero question here that he's once again using anything he can get his mitts on to continue to be a fascist piece of shit. So really, what we should ask is the following:

Is it acceptable to allow horrible racist cunts to use charitable donations to stir up shit?

[Sanctum and Ultima]

We need to turn this around. Tommy Robinson - if he was genuinely concerned about children who had been abused at all - could donate money anonymously.

There's zero question here that he's once again using anything he can get his mitts on to continue to be a fascist piece of shit. So really, what we should ask is the following:

Is it acceptable to allow horrible racist cunts to use charitable donations to stir up shit?

Do not Ctrl+C + Ctrl+V my opinions lol

[Uan aa Boa]

Obviously individuals in paid public positions have every right to dispose of their income any way that they wish, including donating however much they wish to charity. However, I would argue that making this sort of pledge prior to an election ought to be seen as an unethical attempt to influence people's vote.

It would be easier to take seriously if Robinson had managed to find a charity willing to accept the money before making his announcement. He presumably knows that charities couldn't accept and is seeking to portray himself as a victim of political correctness. If he'd wanted to support the work of charities he could do so privately and anonymously to spare them this problem. If he wanted to make the point that he wasn't going to keep his MEP's salary he could have paid it to cancer research, the DEC or many other causes without having to make the obviously racist offer to use it for the victims of crimes by non-whites.

[Esternial]

Is it acceptable to allow horrible racist cunts to use charitable donations to stir up shit?

It shouldn't be illegal, most definitely, but it's not like the media should frame it as anything other than a stunt.

A cunt stunt, if you will.

[Caracasus]

Is it acceptable to allow horrible racist cunts to use charitable donations to stir up shit?

It shouldn't be illegal, most definitely, but it's not like the media should frame it as anything other than a stunt.

A cunt stunt, if you will.

Oh yeah, I mean how would you legislate that? I was talking more whether it was morally acceptable.

Honestly, this is another example of how General is slowly becoming alt-right talking point after alt-right talking point. In what sane universe would this story be framed in a way that makes it appear the charity is the one on morally/ethically dubious grounds? Tommy Robinson is very clearly the one acting in very bad faith here.

[Sanctum and Ultima]

It shouldn't be illegal, most definitely, but it's not like the media should frame it as anything other than a stunt.

A cunt stunt, if you will.

Oh yeah, I mean how would you legislate that? I was talking more whether it was morally acceptable.

Honestly, this is another example of how General is slowly becoming alt-right talking point after alt-right talking point. In what sane universe would this story be framed in a way that makes it appear the charity is the one on morally/ethically dubious grounds? Tommy Robinson is very clearly the one acting in very bad faith here.

Be careful when arguing with an alt-right, as they're idiots

[Caracasus]

Oh yeah, I mean how would you legislate that? I was talking more whether it was morally acceptable.

Honestly, this is another example of how General is slowly becoming alt-right talking point after alt-right talking point. In what sane universe would this story be framed in a way that makes it appear the charity is the one on morally/ethically dubious grounds? Tommy Robinson is very clearly the one acting in very bad faith here.

Be careful when arguing with an alt-right, as they're idiots

Some are, sure. Most are just arguing in bad faith. There's zero point in actually engaging with them aside from pointing out how they're arguing from a position of bad faith to others.

[The United Chinese Republic]

I don't think so. Even if you hide the identity of the person donating, that person may broadcast that they've donated to your charity, thus associating them to your charity. That's not good if you want to keep a reputation.

[Sanctum and Ultima]

I don't think so. Even if you hide the identity of the person donating, that person may broadcast that they've donated to your charity, thus associating them to your charity. That's not good if you want to keep a reputation.

Well, just make them *oof* and call it a car accident or smth to cover it up

[Risottia]

And it got me thinking; should charitable organisations refuse donations because they disagree politically or morally with the one making the donation?

Yes.
Charity donations aren't meant to be reputation bleach.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

They should refuse the money. Accepting it inevitably co-opts them into Tommy Robinson's camp in the eyes of beholders, and will in all likelihood lose them more in donations from donor's who don't want to be associated with a shit like Tommy. There are also quite strict rules for charities in the UK on being 'political'.

[Caracasus]

And it got me thinking; should charitable organisations refuse donations because they disagree politically or morally with the one making the donation?

Yes.
Charity donations aren't meant to be reputation bleach.

Agreed. Additionally, this isn't even an attempt at whitewashing your reputation. Look at why he's donating the money...

[Hugolande]

I understand the charity's reluctance to take the money, but I am not sure how their refusing it doesn't keep Robinson from using them.

1. By offering the donation he comes off as generous. Especially since he appears to be willing to sacrifice a real amount of money here. He can't be in it for the money, even if he is in it for the hate, and not the love.

2. He gets to draw attention to an issue that aligns with his politics, reminding people that white people can be victims too etc.

3. Another non political entity takes a political stand and his opponents act ungenerously. The controversy thus gives him more good PR.

A cynical person can say that Robinson doesn't real care, but then he comes out looking like smart politician.

The charity can't avoid being used by rejecting the offer.

The real monsters are the people who would boycott a charity just because a racist* donated to it.

* I am not sure of he really is a racist. There has been to much crying wolf.

[Uan aa Boa]

The charity can't avoid being used by rejecting the offer.

You say "the charity," but there is no charity. Robinson hasn't given any evidence or details of an actual offer. He has a campaign video that at one point says "100% of my EU salary will go to the child victims of sexual grooming." That's it, no specifics. In response 40 charities in that field have signed a letter basically telling him to fuck off. It might arguably be better for them simply to ignore him, but there's no specific charity that's in enough contact with Robinson to be used by him.

I don't think this makes Robinson (real name Yaxley-Lennon, but I guess Death Eater meets Beatles isn't the image he's looking for) look generous. He needs to address the potential criticism that he's trying to profit from the gravy train he likes to criticise, and he's found a way to make a very thinly veiled racist point while doing so.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Good people don't shout about their charitable donations from the roof tops.

[Ifreann]

I was reading this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -charities

And it got me thinking; should charitable organisations refuse donations because they disagree politically or morally with the one making the donation?

Quick overview if you don't want to read link; semi-famous hooligan turned anti-islam campaigner Tommy Robinson is running in the EU elections in order to stick the middle finger up at all our closest friends and allies on the continent. In a rare display of goodwill / cynical ploy to improve his image he has offered up his (potential) MEP salary to charities that work with victims of the 'asian' child rape gangs that plague our country. The charities are having none of this, and refuse to accept the money:

“Those who have suffered sexual and physical abuse were failed by those who should have protected them. But Tommy Robinson is no ally for the children he claims to stand up for. Tommy doesn’t care about the rights of women and girls – he is exploiting the pain of survivors and their families to fuel racist hate for his own gain.”

While the above may be true (or not, maybe he does care, I'm not a mind reader), cynical ploy or no it's essentially a charity turning down a considerable donation (potentially several hundred thousand Euro over a 5 year term) simply because they don't like the guy giving it.

More likely they're turning down a donation of €0.00.

[Alvecia]

Probably have to be a judgement call on the part of the charity.
Would the donation itself cause more harm by enabling said donator than the charity could do good with the donation in question.

[GrarG]

Since there seems to be a lot being made of the idea that this is purely a cynical attention-grabbing stunt, which I do agree with but still veer on the side of the ends justifying the means (the ends here being that the money is put to a good cause, not that the donor gets 'good' publicity)

Follow up question then; for those who say yes, would it change if the donation was made anonymously so, say, only a few people working at the charity would ever know about the source of the donation?