To regulate or not to regulate?

In a piece in Professional Fundraising online this week, Baroness Crawley, commenting on her view that self-regulation of charity fundraising isn’t working said “The clock is ticking for self-regulation on these annoying practices”. This followed a letter from Baroness Trumpington to the Fundraising Standards Board (FRSB) complaining about the use of coins in direct mail packs, a practice she described as ‘objectionable’.

Personally, I am 100% in favour of the FRSB and continued efforts by the sector to make self-regulation of fundraising work. I get as annoyed as the next person by some attempts made to get me to give money to good causes. Even if I acknowledge the value of the cause I’m being asked to support I cannot give to everyone – my kids need feeding for a start – and object to be made to feel guilty if I don’t respond with a donation.

What I object to even more, however, is legislators such as these peers taking personal objection to a piece of direct mail they receive and, on the basis of their annoyance, threatening the whole fundraising sector with heavy handed government imposed regulation. Just because they don’t like something doesn’t mean it is wrong or that they have an automatic right to legislate or threaten to legislate to make it wrong.

The case for regulation of fundraising should be more robustly made, if it is to be made at all.

PS - On recent experience of government legislative and regulatory regimes – the banking sector for example – one would have to question their effectiveness.

PPS – Does anyone else feel a sense of hypocrisy when Westminster and its expense abusing denizens threaten to regulate what they see as objectionable fundraising practice? Perhaps if they didn’t have the hand in the national till quite so much there might be less of a need for some of the good causes fundraisers are working so hard for.