mercredi 23 novembre 2011

A quoi ressemble l'écritoire d'un fund raiser ?

Le blog Luggage is My Life de Tom Ahern a une belle photo de plan de travail que je vous invite à découvrir.

A la différence de moi, je constate que Tom Ahern conserve encore l'usage du crayon et du papier.

samedi 19 novembre 2011

Succès sans précédent pour l'Institut pour la Justice

Selon mes sources, la campagne de recueil de signatures lancée par l'Institut pour la justice est un succès sans précédent. La rumeur prétend sur leurs serveurs maison ont saturé et qu'ils ont dû faire appel à des prestataires extérieurs.

Selon un communiqué de l'IPJ, le « Pacte 2012 pour la Justice », lancé seulement depuis dix jours sur Internet, a franchi hier le cap symbolique des 750 000 signatures du pacte écologique de Nicolas Hulot. Le 18 novembre, le compteur indiquait 850 000 signatures traduisant ainsi un engouement citoyen inédit motivé par la qualité irréprochable du message envoyé par mail et qui a été diffusé viralement dans le net. A l'heure où j'écris ce blog, le compteur a dépassé 992 000 signatures. Le million n'est pas loin.

Toujours selon le communiqué, le vidéo témoignage d’un père de victime Joël Censier accompagnant les propositions du Pacte 2012 contribue à sensibiliser chaque citoyen à l’état actuel alarmant de la Justice en France. Joël Censier appelle à se mobiliser pour une réforme en profondeur du système judiciaire afin de rééquilibrer la Justice en faveur des victimes en signant le Pacte 2012. Ce Pacte, constitué de cinq propositions d’intérêt général, a été élaboré par des experts (magistrats, avocats, juristes, psychiatres) et a pour objectif de garantir à chacun le droit à une Justice équitable.








L'Institut pour la Justice a ouvert un site dédié qui est un modèle du genre. Simple et efficace. A gauche de l'écran, les échos presse; au centre, les personnalités qui soutiennent le Pacte (dont le très médiatique Gilles-William Goldnadel); à droite, l'actualité et la possibilité de télé charger le dossier complet.

Parmi les échos presse, en voici un sur RTL qui mérite l'oscar de l'attaché de presse.


La mécanique de signature du Pacte est parfaitement étudiée. Le pétitionnaire est encouragé à donner son adresse. Quand on sait le mal que l'on a en France à accéder à des fichiers de personnes motivées, l'IPJ et sa maison mère ont réussi à mettre la main sur un trésor digne des mille et une nuits du marketing direct.

Évidemment, les esprits chagrins ne manquent pas.

La presse d'extrême-gauche s'en donne à coeur joie : Rue89,

Le blog de maître Eolas est sévère avec le Pacte, mais il fait l'effort de l'analyser en détail.

Voici l'introduction de son long post :

Depuis quelques jours, un appel à signer un “Pacte pour la justice” en vue de l’élection présidentielle de 2012 circule sur internet, émanant de l’Institut pour la Justice (IPJ), que mes lecteurs connaissent bien, hélas pour eux.
Dans un premier temps, j’ai consacré à cette initiative le traitement que je réserve à toutes celles de l’IPJ, c’est-à-dire mon plus profond mépris.
Mais je dois reconnaître que l’IPJ est en train de réussir son coup, avec sa méthode habituelle : mettre en avant la douleur d’une victime qui se défend de mettre en avant sa douleur, des affirmations que rien ne vient étayer si ce n’est la parole de la victime, étant entendu que quiconque est contre est un salaud qui méprise la douleur d’un père, un droitdel’hommiste bobo naïf, et bien évidemment l’ami du crime.
J’ai quand même été quelque peu soulagé de constater que sur la centaine de personnes qui m’ont signalé ce lien, la plupart avaient une approche méfiante et voulaient des explications. Car des explications, ce fameux message n’en contient pas le début d’une. Le lire avec un minimum d’esprit critique ne peut que révéler cette évidence, mais vous allez voir qu’il est fait justement pour neutraliser d’entrée votre esprit critique.
Puisque la justice, qu’invoque l’IPJ, mais seulement dans son intitulé, exige un débat ou chaque point de vue peut s’exprimer, je vais donc répondre à ce message, par des faits, des explications, des arguments, bref, par la Raison. Je suis désolé de devoir apporter une réponse critique à Joël Censier, dont je ne puis que comprendre la douleur et la colère, c’est une position que je n’apprécie nullement. Mais c’est lui qui a choisi de porter son histoire dans un débat public et d’en faire un argument politique. Je respecte ce choix, mais il entraîne des conséquences, dont celle de devoir supporter la critique.
Commençons par une analyse du propos de Joël Censier, avant de terminer par une analyse de la démarche de l’IPJ, dont je rappelle qu’il n’est ni un Institut, ni pour la Justice, mais une simple association de 1901 essayant de promouvoir des thèses ultra-répressives sous un vernis pseudo-scientifique, qui revendique sur son site “400 000 sympathisants” mais non adhérents, c’est à dire des gens dont l’implication a été un clic sur internet mais dont aucun n’a souhaité verser la moindre cotisation. Les candidats sollicités feraient bien de s’en souvenir.

Liree la suite sur son blog.

Et l'IPJ lui a répondu point par point.

Maître Eolas n’apprécie pas les propositions du Pacte 2012 pour la Justice. C’est son droit.

Mais plutôt que d’expliquer en détail en quoi ces propositions seraient inappropriées, il se livre à une attaque en règle du témoignage appelant à signer le Pacte – le témoignage de Joël Censier, dont le fils Jeremy a été tué en 2009.

L’intégralité du témoignage de Joël Censier est vrai et authentique. Il est partie civile au procès et a donc accès à l’intégralité du dossier d’instruction. Le billet de Me Eolas, lui, est rempli de contre-vérités parce qu’il est extérieur à l’affaire et n’a pas accès au dossier :
  • Son billet est truffé d’erreurs factuelles et de mise en doute éhontée de la véracité du témoignage d’un père de victime
Dès le début du billet, Maître Eolas prétend par exemple que « il est manifestement impossible que l’agresseur de Jeremy ait su que son père était policier puisque les faits ont eu lieu à Nay et que Jérémy habitait dans le Gers à 200 kilomètres de là ».

Pourtant, la réalité est que deux des mis en cause connaissaient Joël Censier et Jeremy (le juge d’instruction a d’ailleurs été extrêmement surpris lorsque Joël Censier les a reconnus sur les photos qui lui ont été présentées).

Autre exemple, Maître Eolas dit « Cette anecdote est curieuse » et dit « prendre ces affirmations avec des pincettes » quant au fait que Joël Censier se soit vu présenter une convocation à la gendarmerie lors de la reconstitution. C’est pourtant la stricte vérité et cette mise en doute n’honore pas Me Eolas.
  • Loin de « dramatiser » la situation, Joël Censier a au contraire atténué la dureté des faits, par pudeur
Maître Eolas parle de « dramatisation ». Ainsi, il conteste le terme de « barbarie inimaginable » dans les termes suivants : « En réalité, Jérémy Censier a reçu cinq coups de couteau dont deux mortels et des coups de pied une fois au sol. Voilà pour la « barbarie inimaginable ».

Chacun jugera si ces seuls faits relèvent ou non de la barbarie, mais précisons que Joël Censier, par pudeur, s’est gardé de dire qu’un témoin avait vu l’un des jeunes sauter à pieds joints sur la tête de son enfant.

Autre fait non mentionné dans la vidéo, et qui aurait été utilisé si le but avait été de « dramatiser » : les aveux du principal suspect ont été annulés, pour vice de procédure, et ne pourront plus être utilisés contre lui.

Ce n’est pourtant pas un « petit » dysfonctionnement. C’est un coup de tonnerre, une décision sur laquelle  va s’appuyer l’avocat du présumé tueur pour demander l’acquittement de son client.
  • Le seul élément fondé du billet de Me Eolas est de dire que Joël Censier n’utilise pas, à un moment donné, le terme juridique approprié
Joël Censier parle d’une « demande de mise en état du dossier », alors qu’il s’agissait plutôt d’une demande de passer en revue l’instruction.

Voilà pour les faits.

Sur le fond, Me Eolas juge parfaitement normal le fonctionnement d’une Justice qui remet en liberté, sans contrôle judiciaire dans un premier temps, un meurtrier présumé pour la simple raison que des délais de procédure n’ont pas été respectés. C’est son droit, mais c’est le cœur du désaccord avec les soutiens du Pacte 2012.

Pour Joël Censier, pour l’Institut pour la Justice et pour tous les soutiens du Pacte 2012, c’est au contraire le signe d’une Justice qui a perdu de vue sa mission première de protection des citoyens.

Or seule une réforme en profondeur du système judiciaire pourra rééquilibrer la Justice en faveur des victimes : c’est l’objet du Pacte 2012. Et c’est précisément ce qui relie l’affaire Censier à ce Pacte 2012 : la nécessité de reconnecter la Justice aux préoccupations des citoyens.

Pour en savoir plus :

Réaction de Joël Censier au billet de Me Eolas

" Je voudrai dire à ce Monsieur que durant toute ma carrière de Policier, j’ai été l’objet d’invectives en tout genre, tant sur la voie publique, qu’à l’intérieur-même de nos locaux. Je n’y ai porté aucune importance, car nombre d’entre ces gens se trouvaient en situation d’alcoolisme avancé, voire en position sociale pitoyable ou en situation de flagrance délictuelle, voire criminelle.

Leur brutalité verbale les amenait  à déverser leur venin sur les représentants de l’ordre, une manière, somme toute, exutoire qui faisait retomber la pression qui pesait sur eux avant une éventuelle interpellation en règle.

C’est une première que celle d’entendre et de lire les propos vexatoires d’un individu dont l’intelligence, pour un homme qui se dit, homme de loi, s’est arrêtée au niveau bien en-dessous de ce que j’ai pu rencontrer dans ma carrière professionnelle. Chapeau bas à l’homme de loi dont la notoriété intellectuelle, dans le cas d’exemple, se situe à hauteur du caniveau parisien."

En guise de conclusion

Dans ce blog, modeste, consacré au fund raising, je ne m'attarde pas sur le fond des propositions, mais m'intéresse davantage à la technique mise en oeuvre.

Sur ce plan, le travail de l'Institut pour la justice est remarquable. Les résultats de leurs actions sont là pour en témoigner.

 La mobilisation des pétitionnaires témoigne de la sensibilité de l'opinion sur la question de la sécurité et indique le déphasage des faiseurs d'opinion par rapport aux citoyens.

L'Institut pour la Justice est le révélateur d'un sentiment de manque de justice dont les politiques doivent tenir compte.




Le fund raising contribue au débat démocratique

Dans la majorité des sociétés démocratiques, il existe deux systèmes de financement de la vie politique et des appareils des partis.

Aux Etats-Unis et au Royaume-Uni, les partis sont financés par des donateurs, tant personnes physiques que morales. Ce qui a pour conséquence que les intérêts particuliers et collectifs des donateurs ont une influence considérable sur les choix des partis. A titre d'exemple, le Labour est resté longtemps sous l'influence des syndicats et le Parti conservateur sous l'influence des milieux d'affaires.

Un candidat n'ayant pas l'appui de généreux donateurs peut difficilement concurrencer ceux qui ont les poches pleines et qui peuvent acheter massivement des espaces publicitaires.

Dans les autres pays, l'Etat contribue avec largesse à la vie politique. Mais les partis établis ayant fixé les règles, il est très difficile pour une nouvelle formation ou un parti très minoritaire de satisfaire aux conditions requise par la loi pour avoir accès à la manne officielle.

Dans ces deux situations, le fund raising apporte des solutions à tous ceux qui sont en dehors du système.

Aux Etats-Unis, la campagne de Ron Paul est un exemple de mobilisation des citoyens pour financer l'homme politique qui représente leurs espoirs.  Vois l'article du New York Times en fin de post.

En France, du Front national au MPF en passant par les Identitaires, le fund raising est une source indispensable de financement pour permettre à ces formations de faire entendre leur voix.

D'un côté de l'Atlantique comme de l'autre, c'est la générosité de donateurs individuels quyi rendent l'exercice de la démocratie possible.




Niche Voters Giving Paul Momentum in Iowa Polls

VINTON, Iowa — Steve and Cindy Anders belong to one of Iowa’s most politically savvy movements — Christian home-schoolers, whose organizing on behalf of Mike Huckabee in 2008 was one of the secrets behind his upset victory in the state’s Republican caucuses.
Blogs

Daniel Acker for The New York Times


Two Iowa polls this week showed Ron Paul in a statistical tie for first.
This year, the Anderses are behind Representative Ron Paul of Texas, who supports drastically shrinking the federal government and closing the Education Department.

In a year when the Republican field is unusually fractured, with front-runners coming around as often as carousel ponies, Mr. Paul’s ability to mobilize niche groups like home-schoolers may make a big difference. His campaign, which has won a number of straw polls and is picking up momentum, has demonstrated its ability to organize and mobilize supporters, which is particularly relevant in Iowa, where relatively small numbers can tip the scales in the caucuses.

For his part, Mr. Anders was looking forward to a meeting with a Paul campaign staff member to strategize “how we can go to work for Ron Paul.”

“Home-schoolers are really independently minded,” Mr. Anders said, estimating that most of the 10 other families in his Saturday morning coffee club in Council Bluffs, Iowa, supported Mr. Paul. “He believes the federal government has no role in education, as most home-schoolers will agree.”

Home-school families are among the lesser-known converts to Mr. Paul — along with small-business owners and voters well past college age — who have helped him build support beyond his fierce core of followers, often young people.

His support has usually added up to less than 10 percent in surveys of likely Republican primary voters.

But now, thanks to the best organized grass-roots campaign in Iowa and heavy spending on television advertisements that portray him as consistent while other Republicans have flip-flopped, Mr. Paul is breaking through that ceiling, giving rise to a once far-fetched scenario — that he might win the state’s caucuses on Jan. 3.

“I’m buying Ron Paul today,” said Craig Robinson, a former political director for the Republican Party of Iowa, who on Wednesday sent a Twitter message saying, “Ron Paul’s Iowa Campaign Office was abuzz at 8 p.m. tonight when I drove by on my way to the bank. Impressive.”

Two state polls this week show him in a statistical tie for first. One, released Monday by Bloomberg News, showed Mr. Paul winning 19 percent of likely Republican caucus voters, within the margin of error with Herman Cain, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

The Bloomberg poll showed that about two-thirds of Iowa respondents had been contacted by the Paul campaign by phone, e-mail or a knock on the door, more outreach than any other candidate.

“We’ve been out-hustling the other campaigns,” said Jesse Benton, Mr. Paul’s national campaign manager.

Because of strong fund-raising from small donors on the Internet, the campaign has been able to saturate the Iowa airwaves with ads. It has outspent all others — $2.5 million on TV and radio commercials in Iowa and New Hampshire (where a Bloomberg poll had Mr. Paul in second place this week behind Mr. Romney). It plans to spend $4 million more before the voting in those two states begins in less than two months.

The ads highlight Mr. Paul’s message of deep cuts to government spending and conveniently avoid his isolationist foreign policy, which risks turning off undecided voters.

Chuck Walsh, who works for his family’s G.M.-Toyota dealership in Carroll, Iowa, is a recent convert to Mr. Paul.

“I don’t think I was his core type, the young college type,” said Mr. Walsh, 42, a volunteer firefighter and veteran of the Persian Gulf war. He voted for Mr. Romney in 2008 and was leaning toward him again this year, but he changed his mind because the federal government, he said, needs more drastic cuts than Mr. Romney proposes.

Mr. Walsh felt squeamish coming out as a Paul supporter. “The reaction is, ‘Oh, the guy is fringe, he’s crazy,’ “ he said. “People tell me, ‘You’re throwing away your vote.’ I said to myself: ‘Chuck, you wore the uniform, you fought for the right to vote. If you’re voting with your heart, I don’t think you’re throwing away your vote.’ “

In making his third run for the presidency, Mr. Paul, 76, has benefited from the splitting of the social conservative vote in Iowa among a number of candidates, and from the fact that this year jobs and the economy trump concerns over abortion and same-sex marriage.
Four years ago, Mr. Paul stumped around the state, warning that the country was heading for financial calamity because of Washington’s overspending. This year he appears in the same hotel ballrooms, and many regard his message as having been prescient.

But even as he picks up support, very few independent strategists see a path for him to the Republican nomination.

“I don’t think he’s going to be the nominee,” said Steve Roberts, a former chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa. “But he’s certainly in a rarefied atmosphere for him.”

Tim Albrecht, a top aide to Gov. Terry E. Branstad of Iowa, said, “His biggest hurdle is his foreign policy piece.”

“I figured he’d get 16 percent in the caucuses,” Mr. Albrecht added. “Right now he’s polling around 20 percent. That’s enough to be in the hunt this year because it’s so splintered and wide open. But he’s got to continue expanding his message to collect more voters.”

At an event at the Pizza Ranch in Vinton, Iowa, on Friday, the 40 or so voters who came to hear Mr. Paul speak were a cross-section of his core supporters and curious newcomers. The faithful sported their “Ron Paul Revolution” caps and T-shirts.

Lynn Rinderknecht, an organic farmer, said, “I’m kind of leaning toward Ron Paul,” though he noted that the conservative talk radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, where he gets a lot of his news, “don’t like Mr. Paul because of his ideas about the military.”

Mike Dulaney, a retiree, liked Mr. Paul’s book “End the Fed” but questioned his stance on Iran. Mr. Paul had said that Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon, as documented in a recent international report, was overblown.

“I disagree,” Mr. Dulaney said. “I think Ahmadinejad is a very dangerous person who’s going to try to prove something,” he said, referring to Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He favored Mr. Romney, he said.

Lucy Reese, an independent, said she disagreed with many of Mr. Paul’s positions, including his opposition to abortion rights. But she agreed with his focus on the currency system and on auditing the Federal Reserve.

“I am reluctant to commit to anybody, but if I had to pick, I’d pick Ron Paul,” she said.

jeudi 20 octobre 2011

Vive le courrier poubelle!

Un court éditorial du Telegraph qui prend la défense du « courrier poubelle », souvent le seul courrier que reçoivent des personnes isolées et leur dernier moyen pour être encore utiles à la société en apportant leur soutien à de belles causes.

Blessed junk mail

If junk mail is the worst thing in your life, you must lead a blessed existence.

Heading for the bin: the average British household receives 453 items of junk mail a year - Blessed junk mail
Heading for the bin: the average British household receives 453 items of junk mail a year.


It takes different people in different ways. For some, the biggest daily dose of annoyance is delivered by the Today programme. For others, it’s the milkman leaving the bottles standing in the sun. How many times does he need telling? But one provocation that irritates a wider sector of the annoyed classes than most others is junk mail. The very term is annoyingly un-English, but as we report today, the average British household receives 453 items a year. What can be done with it? Can it be turned into bird-scarers, mulch, kindling, cat-litter, papier-mâché trays? Some hope. Even if the Royal Mail can be cajoled temporarily into stemming the flow, pizza shops and curry houses are less easily dissuaded. Yet worse things could come through a letter-box, and it is no mean asset to have a front door in the first place. If junk mail is the worst thing in your life, you must lead a blessed existence.

samedi 15 octobre 2011

A quoi sert l'argent des lobbies politiques ?



Dans un papier bien informé, le journaliste Jamie Doward prend un malin plaisir dans les colonnes du quotidien de gauche britannique The Guardian à révéler les liens étroits entretenus par l'ex-ministre de la Défense Liam Fox avec un réseau de clubs et de fondations nord-américains.

Le journaliste explique bien les mouvements de fonds entre les associations conservatrices états-uniennes, bien financées par des dons généreux d'entreprises et de millionnaires, vers des organisations britanniques partageant les mêmes objectifs mais manquant de financement.

C'est la grande force des groupes d'influence politiques aux Etats-Unis, un financement généreux de la part de personnalités et d'entreprises à un niveau inconnu en Europe. Voici quelques mois, un responsable d'association américaine cherchant à réformer certains aspects de la vie publique dans son pays m'a raconté qu'il envisageait un procès contre un organisme public. Dès que la nouvelle fut rendue publique auprès de ses soutiens, il reçut le jour même un appel lui proposant un don de 250000 dollars. De quoi faire rêver de ce côté-ci de l'Atlantique les responsables de Contribuables associés ou de l'Institut pour la justice.


Liam Fox and wife Jesme (right) with former prime minister Baroness Thatcher at his 50th birthday party in London.

Liam Fox's Atlantic Bridge linked top Tories and Tea Party activists
Officially it was a charity; in fact, Fox's thinktank was a meeting place for the movers and shakers of the right wing

Twenty US business leaders assembled in Pittsburgh in October 2006 to pay court to the coming man of British politics. They could have been forgiven for thinking Liam Fox, with his neatly parted hair and clipped Scottish accent, resembled the GP he had once been, rather than a potential Tory leader.

But, although few of the business leaders knew much about the shadow defence secretary, they were familiar with his charity, the Atlantic Bridge. This was the organisation whose patron, Lady Thatcher, was lionised in the US for her support of the free market and American military airbases on British soil. It was the organisation whose members in 2004 were ushered into the White House to be briefed by Karl Rove, George W Bush's special counsel. And it was the organisation whose cocktail parties in the Carlton Club in London and Charlie Palmer's steakhouse in Washington were high points of the transatlantic social calendar.

Shortly after addressing the business leaders at Pittsburgh's Duquesne Club – "the finest city club in the country"– Fox explained that the Atlantic Bridge promoted the special relationship between the UK and the US by creating "a network of individual people who can know one another". He declared: "We are trying to bring people together who have common interests and to recognise that in an ever more globalised economy, we will all be called upon to defend those common interests."

Last week those interests came back to haunt not just Fox, whose fall on Friday rocked David Cameron's coalition government, but also many Tory members of the cabinet, whose extensive links to the Atlantic Bridge are now under scrutiny. The irony is that it took a furore around Fox's friendship with a relatively minor player in the saga – a lobbyist, Adam Werritty – to make these links apparent.

Admittedly, senior Tory cabinet ministers had been scrambling to distance themselves from the Atlantic Bridge long before the scandal brought Fox down. The organisation's website – and that of its sister charity across the Atlantic – has been dismantled. But old caches of the site reveal that, while shadow ministers, George Osborne, Michael Gove, Chris Grayling and William Hague were all on its advisory council alongside Fox, its UK chairman. All four stood down as awkward questions over its political activities, which contravened charity laws, resulted in the organisation being wound up.

But the links to the cabinet do not end there. Cara Usher-Smith, the director of business development at Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice, was a former director of the Atlantic Bridge. David Cameron's press secretary, Gabby Bertin, admitted last week that she was paid £25,000 by the US drug giant Pfizer when working as the "sole employee" of the charity. Other senior Tories, notably Michael Ancram and Michael Howard, attended its receptions. Sir John Major gave a keynote speech at one of its US fundraisers. Its formidable connections to leading Tories were eclipsed only by its links to senior members of the US Republican party. The Republican senator for Arizona and Senate minority whip, Jon Kyl, and Jim DeMint, a Republican senator for South Carolina and a leading light in the Tea Party movement, were two powerful American members of its advisory council.

To outsiders, the charity may have appeared to be little more than a social club, keen to throw a party in New York to promote Hague's book on William Wilberforce or hold a dinner for 14 in parliament's Club Room – an apparent breach of parliamentary rules. But the group's members were deeply serious in their beliefs, and Fox was more than happy to promote his neoconservative leanings when abroad.

In a speech to Atlantic Bridge members in New York in November 2002, Fox warned "the natural desire to avoid conflict has been reinforced by an innate pacificism in many sections of western society, especially in continental Europe". He told his audience: "For too many, peace has come to mean simply the absence of war. We cannot allow that corrosive view to go unchallenged."

Fox also used the speech to criticise the NHS, which he said had "responded to a funding increase of almost 11% with only a 2% increase in activity".

He was preaching to the converted. The Atlantic Bridge's addresses and conferences were all about promoting market liberalisation. A typical theme of one conference, held in both Los Angeles and Pittsburgh in July 2006, was entitled "Killing the Golden Goose – How Regulation and Legislation are Damaging Wealth Creation". An earlier address in 2003 asked: "How Much Health Care Can We Afford?"

Members of the Galen Institute, a thinktank which promotes "freemarket ideas in health", attended its conferences while the failed bank Lehman Brothers, sponsored at least one event, as did the powerful neocon thinktank the Heritage Foundation.

But in 2007 the Atlantic Bridge's relationship with big business entered a new realm, one that threatens to pose uncomfortable questions for Cameron and his party. The organisation signed a special partnership with the American Legislative Council (Alec), whose motto is "Limited government, free markets, federalism".

Overseen by Catherine Bray, a former adviser to the climate-change sceptic Roger Helmer, a Tory MEP, the project focused on "providing an arena for young conservative leaders on both sides of the Atlantic to build close personal and professional relationships".

Alec is one of the most powerful lobbying organisations in the US. Funded by the likes of Exxon Mobil, tobacco giant Philip Morris and the National Rifle Association, it holds conventions where legislators mingle with lobbyists. According to the Centre for Media and Democracy, a liberal, non-profit, American-based media research group, it uses these events to wine and dine state legislators and present them with pre-drafted bills drawn up on behalf of its members.

Alec boasts: "Each year, close to 1,000 bills, based at least in part on Alec model legislation, are introduced in the states. Of these, an average of 20% become law." One of its biggest supporters is the Koch Foundation, whose founders, the oil barons Charles G Koch and David H Koch, have funnelled about $55m to climate-denial front groups, according to Greenpeace, and are generous donors to the Tea Party movement.

Alec's involvement with Fox's charity coincided with a large increase in funds to the US arm of his organisation. Accounts show that by 2009 the Atlantic Bridge was bringing in $280,508, more than double the $133,926 it was receiving in 2007.

The huge rise in income, which dwarfed that of its UK sister organisation, coincided with a significant expansion in the charity's advisers and directors. By 2009 Werritty, whom the US accounts list as the (unpaid) UK executive director of the Atlantic Bridge, found himself reporting to a new chief executive officer, Amanda Bowman, the former New York director for the Centre for Security Policy, the neocon think-tank that opposed the planned Park 51 Muslim community centre close to the site of Ground Zero.

Further administrative firepower came with the appointment of an impressive group of well-connected lawyers and lobbyists whose clients operate at the heart of the military-industrial complex. Scott Syfert, a lawyer with Moore & Van Allen, which has represented military, chemical and energy interests, became executive chairman of its executive council. Frank Fahrenkopf, president of the American Gaming Association, which represents casino operators, also joined the council, as did Michael Hintze, an Australian billionaire hedge fund manager who has donated more than £1m to the Tories and whose firm, CQS, has invested in firms with defence contracts. John Falk, a US lobbyist whose company, Firecreek, represents the Kestral Group, one of Pakistan's largest defence firms, joined its board of directors. So did Michael Fullerton, a former US department of homeland security adviser now working for Kestral. Randall Popelka, whose Capitol Bridge lobbying firm represents defence interests, joined as its US executive director.

As the Atlantic Bridge boasted on its website: "We have created a network of like-minded people – in politics, business, academia and journalism." It is hard to escape the conclusion that in the space of five years the Atlantic Bridge went from a small, Tory-leaning charity, dispensing freedom medals in the name of Thatcher, to an influential networking club linking most of the cabinet to powerful business interests, neocons and Tea Party enthusiasts. For Cameron, who preaches the gospel of "compassionate Conservatism", the revelation is embarrassing.

Given the elevated circles he was now moving in, it was hardly surprising that Werritty exploited his new contacts. By 2009 a powerful lobby group, Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (Bicom), was covering the cost of Werritty's trip to an important security seminar in Israel. The trip was arranged by Bicom's former deputy chairman, Michael Lewis, who donated to Atlantic Bridge and to Fox's Tory leadership campaign in 2005. Bicom's former communications director, Lee Petar, who runs a lobbying firm, Tetra Strategy, put Werritty in touch with the Dubai businessman, Harvey Boulter, whose meeting with Fox triggered the initial furore that triggered his demise.

Werritty's links to another businessman may also attract interest. It has emerged that an obscure company called Pargav financed his trips. Pargav was partly funded by Tamares Real Estate, an investment company owned by Poju Zabludowicz, chairman of Bicom. It was also funded by the Good Governance Group (G3), a private investigations company staffed by former MI6 officers and founded by Andries Pienaar, a South African who once worked for the security giant Kroll.

The Observer has established that Pienaar has extensive interests in the defence sector. G3 boasts the defence contractor BAE Systems as a client, and its sister company, investment firm C5 Capital, of which Pienaar is a director, focuses on the security sector, seeking investment in "niche sectors that mitigate risk and protect assets and lives – such as cyber security, biometrics, detection and communications". C5 is known to have been interested in buying cyber security firms which had contracts with MI5.

Pienaar played a key role in establishing the Sri Lanka Development Trust, whose address was listed at G3's headquarters, and which paid for several of Fox's trips abroad. "We agreed to help Dr Fox because of our longstanding interest and involvement in conflict resolution and reconstruction," the Good Governance Group said in a statement.

Ultimately, Fox paid the price for blurring the lines between his political and personal life. But the warning signs had been there for some time. Eyebrows were raised two years ago when he appointed a former US army captain, Luke Coffey, as his special adviser. Coffey is a member of the Council for Emerging National Security Affairs, a thinktank that promotes US national security and is staffed largely by ex-CIA agents.

The appointment spoke volumes about Fox's thinking. The Lib Dem peer Lord Oakeshott observed: "We are allies of America, but we are not the 51st state."

Fox disagreed.

jeudi 13 octobre 2011

Il faut apprendre à aimer les pétits dons

Cet homme qui mendie dans les rues de New York est en réalité un riche retraité.

Il ne faut pas mépriser les petits dons quand on a la chance de travailler pour une association en mesure de recevoir des dons et legs.

Déjà, en mensualisant les petits donateurs, comme le font très bien les remarquables professionnels de l'association brésilienne Tradition Famille Propriété (TFP), on réussit à transformer un don occasionnel de 20 euros en un don annuel de 120 euros, grâce à des prélèvements indolores de 10 euros par mois.

Mais la vraie richesse des donateurs modestes réside dans leur patrimoine. Une personne « pauvre », par le simple fait de résider dans un logement qui lui appartient, pèse bien plus que tous les dons qu'elle a pu faire tout au long de sa vie.

Il suffit de lire les comptes annuels des grandes associations caritatives pour constater le poids des donations et des legs.

L'évolution de la démographie fait que de plus en plus de personnes arrivent en âge « mature » et sont en de bonnes dispositions pour accepter des propositions d'associations caritatives pour disposer de leurs biens après leur décès.

Enfin, il existe des personnes dont on ne soupçonne pas la richesse comme nous le rappelle cet article du Daily Mail.


Un mendiant qui cache bien son jeu.

By RACHEL QUIGLEY

Comedian: 97-year-old Prof Irwin Corey panhandles along Manhattan's East 35th Street every day
Hobbling along between cars in his walker, asking for change and proffering free newspapers in return, it is hard to believe he was once known as 'The World's Foremost Authority'.

Professor Irwin Corey, comedian, actor and left-wing political activist, strolls along Manhattan's East 35th Street pan-handling every day, seven days a week, for the last 17 years.

Of course professor Corey - who has enjoyed a long and illustrious career spanning Broadway, television, theatre and comedy clubs - does not need the money.
In fact he is not even homeless, despite his scruffy, scrawny appearance, but has an apartment in an affluent area of New York which he believes to be worth $3.5million.
His reasons for posing as a homeless down-and-outer and hassling drivers for change are two-fold: Since his wife of seventy years Fran died in May he said it helps beat the loneliness.
The 97-year-old also donates all the money he raises - sometimes up to $250 a day - to a charity that buys medical supplies for children in Cuba.
Over his eight-decade career, he has worked alongside Jackie Gleason and Woody Allen and appeared on Late Night with David Letterman.
In fact he still performs fairly regularly and told the New York Times that he flew to Chicago a week ago to play two nights at a local club.

Mr Corey has cultivated his 'professor' charade since the 1940s, with his trademark black tails, a string tie, high-top sneakers and scarecrow hairdo.

Though his stage persona is known more of its witty one-liners, put down of hecklers and nonsensical observations, he is mild-mannered to those who give him money on the street, always expressing gratitude and telling them: 'See you later, alligator.'

Mr Corey has travelled to Cuba to donate personally, he said, and has photographs on his wall with Fidel Castro, alongside one of him on the David Letterman show in 1982, and with the likes of the comedian Dick Gregory and the actor Ossie Davis.



Famous friends: The comedian and noted communist anarchist, far left, met Fidel Castro when he was in Cuba donating money to charity

Day's work: Mr Corey returns home every afternoon with bulging pockets to count out his takings before putting them in bundles ready to be donated

dimanche 18 septembre 2011

WikiLeaks a besoin d'argent, vite.

Cet article de Guy Adams envoyé depuis Los Angeles  pour The Independent, montre à quelles expédients doit se résoudre une organisation qui ne structure pas son fundraising à temps.



Can the cult of Assange save cash-strapped WikiLeaks?



Roll up, roll up! The great WikiLeaks memorabilia auction has just begun. The laptop computer on which "Cablegate" was compiled is on offer for £6,000, while some signed versions of those famous diplomatic cables can be yours for just £2,100. And do I hear £240 for a sachet of prison coffee once purloined by an incarcerated Julian Assange?

With normal sources of revenue stifled by a financial services embargo – and running costs and legal fees mounting – the website's proprietors are doing what comes naturally to cash-strapped citizens of the internet era: selling a selection of prized second-hand possessions on eBay.

The first of four fundraising auctions was announced at the weekend, featuring 10 intriguing lots ranging from a print of the directive in which Hillary Clinton asked US officials to spy on the UN, to a signed photograph of Mr Assange, the WikiLeaks founder.

"In this framed unique photo, Julian Assange leans against a column at the front of Ellingham Hall where he has spent almost 300 days under house arrest," reads the accompanying blurb, which informs bidders that the image was autographed at Mr Assange's 40th birthday party. "It is one of only four photos of Julian in the world that were signed on this occasion," it adds.

That item was going for £640 last night, although bidding will not reach its crucial stages until Thursday. Bigger ticket items include the laptop computer, described as having "led to hundreds of front pages and a causative element in ongoing political turmoil and reforms". It has attracted a bid of £6,000.

Some of the organisation's prominent supporters have also chipped in. Vivienne Westwood is offering two tickets to her Paris fashion show later this month for £8,000. Chef Sarah Saunders will cook dinner at your home for £800. And John Pilger, the filmmaker, has contributed a signed movie poster, currently going for £420.

WikiLeaks, which is funded by donations, said the auction is an effort to replace cash lost during an "unlawful financial embargo" during which the Bank of America, Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and Western Union have refused to process payments to its accounts.

The celebrity sales patter attached to some auction lots may, however, lead critics to complain that the organisation has become unduly interested in promoting its founder. Mr Assange's soaring profile is reported to be a factor in simmering disputes which have recently seen several of his former colleagues resign from WikiLeaks.

Included in the auction, for example, is a coffee sachet purloined by Mr Assange during his stay at Her Majesty's pleasure before Christmas. "This rare item has been signed on one side: 'Julian A, Prison coffee, smuggled out of Wandsworth Prison by me on 17 Dec 2010'," reads the blurb. "On the other side of the sachet Julian has inked a fingerprint. The sachet is unopened."

Mr Assange is currently staying at the 650-acre Ellingham Hall estate, in Norfolk, while he fights extradition to Sweden. He denies charges of sexual misconduct with two women in Stockholm, saying they are part of a wider conspiracy against him.

Whistleblower's wares on offer

Item: CableGate preparation computer

Description 'The database machine allowed the WikiLeaks team to search the full set of cables and extract the cables to be sent encrypted to media organisations throughout the world.'

Item: Julian Assange's prison coffee sachet, signed and fingerprinted

Description 'Scarce item of memorabilia from Julian Assange's time in prison. When he left to go under house arrest in Norfolk, he smuggled out this, one of three sachets of coffee. The sachet is unopened.'

Item: Cable on UN spying, signed and fingerprinted

Description 'The unique cable details Hillary Clinton asking her diplomats to spy on UN officials, requesting them to collect details of UN officers, including Ban Ki-moon's DNA. Julian has also written the WikiLeaks' slogan on the cable: "Courage is Contagious."'

Item: Signed photograph of Julian Assange

Description 'Exclusive photo (13cm x 18cm) of the organisation's founder. It was taken at Ellingham Hall where Julian is under house arrest.'

mercredi 7 septembre 2011

Saint Joseph du Dakota : peut mieux faire

L'oeuvre des Indiens sioux du Dakota est une légende dans le monde du fundraising. Ils ont récolté en 2010 près de 50 millions de dollars et leur patrimoine s'est accru durant cette période de près de 12 millions de dollars pour atteindre 76 millions.

Pour y parvenir, les fundraisers qui travaillent pour eux font appel à des méthodes vigoureuses, pas toujours en accord avec la réalité.

Ce qui a conduit l'association à se faire épingler par le BBB pour des pratiques qu'ils considèrent comme abusives, notamment en mentionnant des urgences qui, au regard de la richesse de l'association, n'ont pas lieu d'être.

In the Alliance's opinion, direct mail appeals sent in 2010 cited emergency financial needs that are not evident in the financial statements St. Joseph's provided to the Alliance.
Specifically, direct mail appeals included references to St. Joseph's emergency financial needs related to the cost of utilities.  Below are excerpts from such an appeal:
“South Dakota winters are known to be brutally cold.  They can last up to six months.  The cost to heat and light the 20 children's homes--along with classrooms and other school buildings--takes a huge toll on our budget.
"That's why I'm looking to you...for your urgent assistance.  Would you please send an emergency gift right away to keep our Lakota students warm this winter?
After leaving the accounting department, I did some additional calculating.  I discovered utilities alone cost us $4.68 a day per child.  Now, at first glance, this may not sound like very much, but when you multiply it by 220 boys and girls, it's an enormous drain on our limited resources.  The total?  Over $376,254"
Given the resources available to the organization, the Alliance disagrees with the claim that the cost of utility expenses is an emergency need.

Quand j'ai reçu un premier mailing de la succursale française de cette œuvre, j'ai cru tout d'abord à une opération frauduleuse car l'adresse et le téléphone sont celles d'une société de services qui assure le secrétariat.

Finalement, j'ai pu vérifier qu'il s'agissait bien d'une opération de fundraising international conduite depuis les Etats-Unis grâce à l'intercession de quelques personnes en France et une avance de fonds de 300 000 euros venant des Etats-Unis.

Le grand manitou du fundraising de cette association catholique est Kory Christianson. Il est si bien considéré par ses pairs qu'il a reçu en janvier 2010  le Max L. Hart Nonprofit Achievement Award.

The Direct Marketing Association's Nonprofit Federation (DMANF) announced Kory Christianson of St. Joseph’s Indian School in South Dakota as the 2010 recipient of its Max L. Hart Nonprofit Achievement Award.

The award recognizes outstanding achievement by an individual within the nonprofit community, and was presented at a luncheon on Friday, Jan. 29, during DMANF’s 2010 Washington Nonprofit Conference at the Renaissance Hotel in Washington, D.C.

“The Awards Committee was very impressed by the detailed and enthusiastic nomination submitted on Kory’s behalf,” said Mary A. Bogucki, chair of DMANF’s Awards Committee, and vice president, Amergent.  “We received notes from individuals praising Kory from both the corporate and nonprofit communities. His leadership, integrity, and humility are the true hallmarks of a worthy recipient. It is no surprise we reached a unanimous decision to present him with this year’s Max Hart Award.”

Christianson has worked in the development office at St. Joseph’s school for over 16 years.  As the executive director of development, he oversees their USA, Germany, and France fundraising programs and leads a team that raises over $50 million annually in support of programs and services for the Native American population throughout all of South Dakota. His commitment to service of the nonprofit community continues, as he is a volunteer fundraiser for the Mitchell Christian School and a member of the Avera Queen of Peace Hospital Foundation board of directors. In 1999, he became a Certified Fundraising Executive (CFRE), and in 2000 was awarded the Charity Fundraising Executive of the Year Award by the National Federation of Non-Profits.

St. Joseph’s Indian School in Chamberlain, South Dakota, is a residential and educational center dedicated to helping the state’s Native American population.  The school is privately operated and receives no regular government funding.  Through the generosity of its supporters, St. Joseph’s provides for all the needs of its 200 students — everything from food and clothing, to a well-rounded education and counseling — at no cost to them or their families.

DMANF’s award was established in 1990 as the Nonprofit Achievement Award, and was renamed in 2005 for Max L. Hart, formerly of the Disabled Americans.  Hart is a DMA Hall of Fame honoree and longtime advocate, supporter, and champion of professionalism for the nonprofit fundraising community. 
Pour l'anecdote, il prend la parole aujourd'hui mercredi 7 septembre dans quelques heures à Omaha sur le thème de la maximisation de l'impact du marketing direct. Je peux vous dire qu'il en connaît un rayon. Il n'est pas avare de son expérience qu'il aime à partager avec d'autres.

Les résultats de ses opérations en France sont très encourageants. Lors de la première année de récolte, St Joseph a engrangé 664 000 euros pour 180 000 euros de frais de fundraising. Ce qui a laissé un solde des ressources de 453 000 euros.


L'agence en charge des opérations ne fait pas le détail. A titre d'exemple, un donateur qui a envoyé un don payé sur sa société a reçu en retour un reçu libellé à l'ordre de la société, ce qui est bien normal, mais ce qui l'est moins est que cette personne n'existe pas en tant que donateur, les courriers ultérieurs ne lui sont pas adressés mais à la société.






Comme package d'accueil, on peut mieux faire.

Un mois plus tard, le donateur a reçu un nouvel envoi, cette fois contenant un calendrier et une lettre dans laquelle on trouve une révélation, l'école pour laquelle ses fonds sont sollicités contient en tout et pour tout 200 élèves, soit rien qu'aux Etats-Unis, 250 000 dollars de dons par élève, de quoi leur offrir un palace cinq étoiles.

Les textes du calendrier sont assez calamiteux car ils donnent l'impression que les Européens ne viennent en aide aux Amérindiens que depuis 1927 data à laquelle des prêtres de la mission du Sacré Cœur ont fondé l'école Saint Joseph du Dakota.

Visiblement les rédacteurs de l'agence n'ont jamais entendu parler des tribulations du jésuite flamand Pierre-Jean de Smet, exactement au même endroit, mais près d'un siècle plus tôt.

Ils ne connaissent pas grand-chose non plus de l'histoire des Indiens sioux car ils auraient pu tirer profit du fait qu'au moins un tiers d'entre eux possèdent des noms français.

Notons que cette association n'est pas la seule à venir en aide aux Indiens sioux.  L'association Oiseau Tonnerre est plus modeste dans ses moyens mais pas dans ses ambitions. Elle présente l'avantage de ne rien ignorer des liens entre les Français et les Sioux, liens que l'agence française de Saint Joseph du Dakota méconnaît totalement.

Pour en savoir plus, je recommande chaudement l'ouvrage d'Arnaud Balvay :







lundi 5 septembre 2011

Ce qui compte, c'est le donateur

Movie Mondays: How one simple change caused 1000% growth in donations


Je suis frappé par la capacité de nos confrères américains à résumer en quelques minutes un point important.

Dans ce post de Christopher Davenport, le fundraiser Tom Ahern rappelle une règle de base de la communication avec le donateur.

Il ne s'agit pas de se faire plaisir, mais de faire plaisir au donateur, lui démontrer que son don de 15, 35 ou 10 000 euros sert à quelque chose.




samedi 3 septembre 2011

Fundraising : il faut dire la vérité aux donateurs


De retour de Somalie, Unni Karunakara, le patron de Médecins sans frontières, a fait des déclarations dans la presse qui méritent d'être soulignées car enfin une association caritative parle vrai en ce qui concerne les promesses faites aux donateurs.

Curieusement dans la dépêche de l'AFP, il n'est pas du tout question de ce point  précis :


Somalie: le terrain le plus difficile pour les humanitaires
NAIROBI — La Somalie, avec sa guerre civile et la multiplication des centres de pouvoir, est le pays le plus difficile au monde pour les humanitaires, contraints de travailler à l'aveuglette face aux conséquences d'une sécheresse historique, estime le président international de Médecins sans frontières, Unni Karunakara.
MSF est une des rares organisations à ne pas avoir quitté la Somalie depuis le début de la guerre civile en 1991, et à travailler aujourd'hui dans certaines régions du sud et du centre contrôlées par les islamistes shebab.
"Mais même avec les réseaux dont nous disposons, nous avons de graves difficultés pour accéder aux régions à problème, et pour mener les estimations indépendantes absolument essentielles pour distribuer de l'aide", souligne le Dr Karunakara. "Aujourd'hui, nous travaillons à la marge" du problème, estime-t-il.
La Somalie "est pour moi le pays le plus difficile" où opérer. "Nous travaillons en Afghanistan, en Irak, mais nous n'avons pas besoin de gardes armés dans ces pays", relève le président international de MSF, de retour d'une visite en Somalie, à Mogadiscio et à Galkayo.
"En Côte d'Ivoire, où il y avait une guerre, il nous a fallu 36 heures pour mener notre première opération. Ici (en Somalie), même obtenir une voiture fait l'objet de négociations".
La sécheresse en Somalie, consécutive à plusieurs saisons sèches, touche 3,7 millions de personnes soit la moitié de la population selon les Nations Unies.
La famine qui en découle sévit essentiellement dans des régions contrôlées par les shebab, où MSF maintient plusieurs programmes d'aide médicale, notamment à Dinsor et à Mareere. "Mais même là, notre accès est très limité", reconnaît le Dr Karunakara.
Les régions officiellement contrôlées par le gouvernement sont, souvent, également difficilement accessibles, ajoute-t-il.
"On parle beaucoup de lever de l'argent et d'amener de l'aide à Mogadiscio. Mais le vrai défi est de savoir comment amener la nourriture du port vers les gens qui en ont besoin", estime le Dr Karunakara.
Du centre et du sud du pays, la crise humanitaire s'est transportée à Mogadiscio, avec l'arrivée de 100.000 personnes fuyant la sécheresse.
"risque d'épidémie élevé"
"Le risque d'épidémie est élevé en raison du surpeuplement et de l'accès très réduit" à des sanitaires et à des points d'eau. MSF a entamé dans la capitale somalienne une campagne de vaccination contre la rougeole, avec 3.000 enfants vaccinés à ce jour, et doit ouvrir la semaine prochaine un centre de prévention du choléra.
"Nous voyons déjà beaucoup de cas d'infections de la peau, des yeux, des poumons, des diarrhées aiguës. Tout ceci est le signe d'une très mauvaise situation hygiénique", s'inquiète le médecin.
Le retrait des shebab de Mogadiscio le 6 août n'a pas radicalement amélioré la situation. "Il y a un vide du pouvoir" dans les quartiers qu'ils ont abandonnés, obligeant les organisations humanitaires à négocier avec quiconque y dispose d'un réel pouvoir, dit le patron de MSF.
"En ce moment nous interviewons 200 personnes pour des postes d'infirmières. Mais chaque embauche doit être discutée avec les chefs de clans, qui vont dire ensuite qui peut être embauché ou pas", relève le Dr Karunakara.
Le patron de MSF rêverait de davantage de visibilité quant à l'ampleur de la crise. Les contrôles effectués par ses équipes suggèrent un taux de malnutrition sévère de près de 30% chez les enfants de moins de cinq ans, mais il souligne qu'"il ne s'agit pas de données scientifiques".
"Nous évitons de donner des chiffres globaux, car de tels chiffres ne signifient rien", estime-t-il, appelant de ses voeux "un accès beaucoup plus ouvert aux régions touchées par la sécheresse, afin que nous puissions y mener de vraies estimations".

En revanche, dans  ce papier de Tracy McVeigh dans les colonnes du Guardian, le journaliste se fait bel et bien l'écho des propos de Unni Karunakara que tous les fundraisers devraient conserver à l'esprit : ne pas faire des promesses qui sont sans rapport avec la réalité.

Charity president says aid groups are misleading the public on Somalia

Médecins Sans Frontières executive says charities must admit that much of the country can't be helped 

The head of an international medical charity has called on aid agencies to stop presenting a misleading picture of the famine in Somalia and admit that helping the worst-affected people is almost impossible.

The international president of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), Dr Unni Karunakara, returned from Somalia last week and said that, even though there was chronic malnutrition and drought across east Africa, hardly any agencies were able to work inside war-torn Somalia, where the picture was "profoundly distressing". He condemned other organisations and the media for "glossing over" the reality in order to convince people that simply giving money for food was the answer.

According to Karunakara, agencies have been able to provide medical and nutritional care for tens of thousands in camps in Kenya and Ethiopia, which have been receiving huge numbers of refugees from Somalia. But trying to access those in the "epicentre" of the disaster has been slow and difficult. "We may have to live with the reality that we may never be able to reach the communities most in need of help," he said.

Karunakara said that the use of phrases such as "famine in the Horn of Africa" or "worst drought in 60 years" obscured the "man-made" factors that had created the crisis and wrongly implied that the solution was simply to find the money to ship enough food to the region.

He described Mogadishu, the Somali capital, as dotted with plastic sheets supported by twigs, sheltering groups of weak and starving people who had walked in from the worst-affected areas in southern and central Somalia. "I met a woman who had left her home with her husband and seven children to walk to Mogadishu and had arrived after five days with only four children," he said.

"MSF is constantly being forced to make tough choices in deploying or expanding our activities, in sticking to our principles of neutrality with the daily realities of people going without healthcare, without food. Our staff face being shot. But glossing over the man-made causes of hunger and starvation in the region and the great difficulties in addressing them will not help resolve the crisis. Aid agencies are being impeded in the area.

"MSF has been working in Somalia for 20 years, and we know that if we are struggling then others will not be able to work at all. The reality on the ground is that there are serious difficulties that affect our abilities to respond to need."

He said charities needed to start treating the public "like adults". He went on: "There is a con, there is an unrealistic expectation being peddled that you give your £50 and suddenly those people are going to have food to eat. Well, no. We need that £50, yes; we will spend it with integrity. But people need to understand the reality of the challenges in delivering that aid. We don't have the right to hide it from people; we have a responsibility to engage the public with the truth."

Chronic malnutrition, said Karunakara, is not new in east Africa and needs long-term action. "The Somali people have been living in a country at war, with no government, for 20 years, with several long periods of hardship, of famine and drought. This harvest failure is just what has tipped them over the edge this time, a catastrophe made worse," he said.

A brutal war between the transitional government, which is backed by western nations and supported by African Union troops, and armed Islamist opposition groups, notably al-Shabaab, is ongoing in Somalia. Fierce clan loyalties keep independent international assistance away from many communities, meaning that Somalis are trapped between various forces, depriving them of food and healthcare for political reasons.

"We face constant difficult challenges over simple things like a new nurse or getting a car," said Karunakara. "When we need to be saving lives with a fully fledged medical response, we constantly need to be communicating with both sides in a war, reminding them what humanitarian aid is. One needs only to look at how few charities are working in Somalia."

Ian Bray, a spokesman for Oxfam, said it was unhelpful for aid agencies to be seen to be arguing with each other.

"We're being honest with donors and we have always been honest," said Bray. "A drought is a natural occurrence; a famine is man-made. We don't go around to people saying we have a magic wand, give us £5 and we will make Africa feed itself. We do say give us £5 and we won't use it to give you a history of Somalia, but we will use our expertise to save lives. This is what the bargain is we make with our donors. If you support us, we will do our level best to alleviate the distress for those people in most dire need."





jeudi 1 septembre 2011

Des avortistes pas en phase avec la société

Dans le Guardian, la journaliste Polly Curtis se fait l'écho de l'inquiétude des organisations avortistes britanniques face à la perspective d'un changement de législation.

Les associations de gauche qui militent pour la banalisation de l'avortement se heurtent à une difficulté considérable, il est très difficile de « vendre » un avortement au public habituel des donateurs.

Leur action d'influence ne peut s'appuyer sur une action de masse par le biais du marketing direct car elle risque fort de perdre beaucoup d'argent.

La solution consiste à faire des actions d'influence auprès de pourvoyeurs de fonds publics ou para-publics.

C'est la recette à laquelle fait appel, par exemple, SOS Racisme.

Toutefois, cet échec à entrer en empathie avec la population est révélatrice du fait que ces associations proposent des politiques qui ne sont pas aussi en phase avec ce que pensent les citoyens que les grands médias (comme le Guardian) le prétendent.

A titre de comparaison théorique, je suis frappé par le fait que l'Œuvre des orphelins de la Police recueille à elle seule 15,5 millions d'euros du public pour seulement 0,1 million d'argent public.

Le budget de l'Œuvre des orphelins de la Police.


En d'autres termes, on pourrait avancer que cette association est bien plus représentative de la France que SOS Racisme dont le budget d'un peu plus de 1 million d'euros est pour l'essentiel payé par de l'argent public et par Pierre Bergé.



Abortion law reform plans criticised by women's groups 
Charities and health bodies call on equalities minister to intervene and protect rights of women to get impartial advice
A coalition of women's groups has written to the equalities minister, Lynne Featherstone, urging her to intervene in the row over backbenchers' attempts to reform abortion protocols. They say the proposals could delay abortions and allow anti-abortion groups to counsel women.

Featherstone is being asked to seek a guarantee within government that the current system won't change, ahead of a potential vote that could overhaul the existing counselling services for women seeking to terminate a pregnancy

The signatories to the letter include the Fawcett Society, the Women's Health Equalities Consortium, the Medical Women's Federation and the National Assembly of Women as well as the trade union Unison.

It will pile pressure on the Liberal Democrat minister, who has faced criticisms that she has failed to intervene on other coalition policies that Labour claims adversely affected women.

"Preventing abortion providers from offering decision-making support opens the door for organisations opposed in principle to abortion to become formally involved in counselling women on their pregnancy options," the letter says. "Previous governments have always acted on evidence and taken guidance from expert medical professionals. There is no evidence of a need for change in this area and no support from professional clinical organisations for such change."

The intervention comes amid wranglings in government over how to handle an amendment that could be selected when the health bill returns to the Commons next week, which would mean all women seeking abortions would be offered counselling independent of the abortion provider, in a move that could strip charities that provide the services of their current role. It is being proposed by the Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries and Labour's Frank Field and backed by a campaign with links to anti-abortion groups.

On Sunday, the Department of Health said that it would go ahead with plans to introduce independent counselling and consult on how it would work, in a move that was interpreted as caving into the campaign.

After an intervention from No 10 and furious Lib Dems, the government announced it will not support the amendment – though MPs will still get a free vote – with David Cameron and DoH ministers voting against. It also reworded its position on the plans, saying it would consult on the "best" counselling options for women but that the outcome was not a foregone conclusion.

Anne Milton, the public health minister, wrote to coalition MPs yesterday to clarify the government's position and confirm that the health ministers would vote against it.

On Thursday, the Right to Know campaign, which is supporting Dorries's and Field's campaign and is backed by some known anti-abortionists, responded robustly to the government's opposition to the plan. It published a poll of MPs conducted in April, prior to the row over the implications of the move, which found that some 92% backed the statement. "A woman should have a right to impartial advice when considering having an abortion, from a source that has no commercial interest in her decision."

A spokeswoman for the campaign said: "The widespread support for the objectives of this campaign is unsurprising.  It is important that conflicts of interest are removed from the provision of abortion counseling.

 "We want to see women considering abortion provided with the space to think through their decision. This is not a party political issue. The welfare of women is at stake here.

Yvette Cooper, the shadow equalities minister, said the changing position had left the issue mired in confusion. "There is now complete confusion and chaos in government on abortion. This is what happens when David Cameron pursues short-term headlines without thinking the issues through," she said.

Darinka Aleksic, co-ordinator of the Abortion Rights UK campaign, said: "We need to be clear, these amendments are an attack on women's reproductive rights. If implemented they will limit, rather than expand, the availability of impartial advice and information to women facing unplanned pregnancy. Their aim is to restrict and deter women from accessing abortion services."

Evan Harris, vice-chair of the Liberal Democrat federal policy committee and pro-choice campaigner, said: "Previous governments in this sensitive area have always acted only on the basis of the best advice from expert medical organisations and I will strongly urge the government not to disturb or propose disturbing the existing arrangements for providing unbiased advice until this has demonstrated that there is a problem and persuaded the Royal Colleges or BMA of the case."

mercredi 31 août 2011

Sans contrainte de l'Etat, pas de bénévoles pour les associations caritatives allemandes

Dans les colonnes de l'hebdomadaire allemand Der Spiegel, la journaliste Catherine Cheney révèle les conséquences inattendues de la fin du service militaire en Allemagne pour les associations qui dépendent des objecteurs de conscience pour assurer leurs missions.



Lack of Volunteers
End of Conscription Causes Headache for Charities


When Germany eliminated conscription this year, an extensive civil service program for conscientious objectors also came to an end. A new program launched to replace it, however, has not found enough volunteers. Now, many service organizations are facing shortages.


When Matthias Fritzsche began working as a volunteer helping the elderly in Berlin, he had no idea how many people were in need of assistance. Now, a year later, he says the experience has helped him find his calling.

Fritzsche, though, wasn't a willing volunteer when he began his stint with the relief agency Malteser International. For decades, young Germans who registered as conscientious objectors to mandatory military service were required to perform volunteer work instead. Without that policy, 26-year-old Fritzsche might never have decided to pursue a career in medicine.
"I wouldn't have chosen to do this, so it's good the government said I had to," says Fritzsche, who will continue volunteering for Malteser after serving in the civil service for 10 months.

That government requirement, though, is now ending. On July 1, the German government officially terminated its mandatory military service for young men -- which means the army of conscientious objectors, upon which the German social sector had relied on for 50 years, will also disappear. And just as the German military is struggling to attract recruits to fill the military ranks, the federal government is scrambling to attract volunteers to a federal program that is meant to fill the civil service void.

'Commit Themselves to the Common Good'

Many social service organizations are concerned that the effort will not be successful. The new Federal Voluntary Service is looking to eventually recruit 35,000 volunteers for placements across Germany. Unlike the civil service program, available only young men opting out of the military, the new service is open to women and does not have an age limit.

German Family Minister Kristina Schröder has said she invites others to "commit themselves to the common good" and to ensure that the new service "will be as successful as the civil service over the last 50 years."

Critics, though, argue that the government cannot expect to change the "culture of volunteerism" in just a few short months. An all-too-quick transition, they say, has led to miscommunication and confusion. And, looking to the Sept. 1 start date for the voluntary year, they worry that the young men who once opted to work in retirement homes, youth programs, and hospitals did so, at least initially, because it was required.

Now that the national volunteer service is, in fact, voluntary, who will sign up?

"This kind of voluntary work has to be established in Germany," says Claudia Kaminski, a spokesperson for Malteser, which relies on volunteers for its humanitarian aid work. "Our society is used to this mandatory military service, and now its end shows our society that everyone has to care."

'Rather Difficult'

Kaminski says that as of Aug. 18, about 320 volunteers from the Federal Voluntary Service had signed up for assignments lasting six to 24 months with Malteser, though the organization had expected 1,000 new contracts by Sept. 1.

"The way [the new service] was communicated was rather difficult," says Kaminski. "First the government told us we are going to shorten the service, and then it was quite surprisingly stopped in the middle of the year."

Forty percent of the civil service volunteers at Malteser agreed to stay on longer, which Kaminski says will help with the transition. But she expects it will take years for the organization to regain its annual number of volunteers, and until then, it will face challenges in serving the community at the level it has in the past.

The extended service of civil service volunteers like Fritzsche not only helps organizations during the transition, but also allows the government to keep lower-than-expected recruitment numbers hidden in the small print.

Hermann Kues, a state secretary in the Family Affairs Ministry, which oversees the new service, touted the fact that there were 17,300 Federal Voluntary Service contracts as of July 1. He said it was a sign of the nationwide interest in volunteering. But 14,300 of those contracts were with former civil service volunteers who extended their service, meaning only 3,000 new people had signed up to serve by the launch of the program.
The Ministry of Family Affairs said it expects 10,000 new contracts by the end of October, with an eventual goal of 35,000 volunteers.

"The Voluntary Civil Service is completely new and we have to do some publicity to make sure people know about the service," said Katja Laubinger, a spokesperson for the ministry.

Part The ministry has made marketing a priority for the new service in the hope that it will gain the national reputation of its two counterparts, the Voluntary Social Year and Voluntary Ecological Year, which have been around for decades and already have registered a combined total of more than 30,000 volunteers for the upcoming year.

The Voluntary Social and Ecological Years are also federally funded, but organized primarily on a state-by-state basis. They are available to young people ages 16 to 27. Like the new voluntary service, they offer a minimal stipend and state-sponsored health insurance to its recruits.

Laubinger says there were discussions about the possibility of merging the new service with these two existing volunteer programs, but the government ultimately decided to maintain the balance between having national and regional organizations.

Bernd Kuhlmann, who places young people in Ecological Voluntary Year assignments throughout Berlin, has a different take. "Young people know us, the schools know us, and we're very successful," he says. "We would have preferred to … make one organization of it."

Fearful of Losing Funds

In a perfect world, says Kuhlmann, the government would continue to provide funding without exerting control, as it did with the civil service, which was "integrated into the framework." Instead, he says, organizations did not receive some of the funds they had counted on for the upcoming year.

"We had 70 spaces here in Berlin for conscientious objectors," Kuhlmann says. "We made partnerships with new organizations and facilities, but now we have lost our funding."

Hartmut Brombach, who coordinates Voluntary Social Year placements across Germany, says he fears losing people in addition to funds. He says it will be more expensive for civil service organizations to take on young people who opt for the Voluntary Social or Ecological Year over the Federal Voluntary Service.

In a continuing back-and-forth that reveals the confusion surrounding this new Federal Voluntary Service, the government says this is not the case.

Hammond Schäfer, a spokesperson for the Family Ministry, counters that the government provides civil service organizations with €200 per volunteer each month regardless of the program they choose. "Quite a few civil service organizations are skeptical," he says, trying to address the confusion over numbers. "They're not very fond of the federal voluntary service."

"We must take part in this new program, because if we don't take part we won't get any money," said Brombach. "But I think the solution will not be one or the other but a third way between these two programs."

Despite the concerns and the confusion, there is some cause for optimism.

The number of young people signing up for volunteer programs has grown by tens of thousands over the last decade, and on average, three people apply for every one position offered by the Social Voluntary Year. Those numbers could increase more with the addition of women and senior citizens who were not able to participate in the civil service. And with a €350 million annual budget, the government is investing more than ever in volunteer services.

A Legitimacy Problem

Some organizations are confident that with continued coordination, the problems will work themselves out.

"The government was aware about the need of compensation relating the abandonment of military service and civil service," explains Gisela Graw of the humanitarian aid organization Arbeiter Samariter Bund. "There were, are and will be common meetings, efforts and modifications regarding the new national voluntary service and the challenge of establishing it with success."

But time is ticking for the Federal Voluntary Service to assert itself as a worthy replacement for the treasured tradition of the civil service.

"The government has a lot of money, they have a big office, and yet they only get 3,000 people to sign up," Kuhlmann says, sitting before a stack of brochures on environmental volunteer opportunities in Berlin. "Now, they have a problem of legitimacy."


Le scandale SOS Racisme

Le journaliste Tefy Andriamanana dans les colonnes de Marianne le jeudi 25 Août 2011 a exposé les soucis financiers de l'association SOS Racisme à la suite de l'échec de son concert du 14 juillet 2011.

Une tapée de partenaires mis en exergue sur la promo du concert…

La lettre de l'association pour solliciter des fonds à ses « parrains ».

Le constat d'échec transmis par cette lettre est terrifiant. Comment avoir envie de verser des sommes, souvent importantes, à une association qui avoue être isolée dans la société française ?

C'est sans doute cette marginalisation qui explique la « défaillance » de certains partenaires.

Le résultat positif du concert semblerait donc davantage révélateur du succès des artistes mobilisés plutôt que de l'adhésion à une cause antiraciste mal gérée, vieillie et moribonde. En outre, l'image de marque de SOS Racisme est désormais associée dans l'esprit des Français à des démarches liberticides ou délatrices. Pas de quoi ouvrir les porte-feuilles.

Enfin, il est proprement scandaleux qu'une association qui prétend représenter une majorité de Français (voir le texte de la lettre) ne récolte que 6,8 % de ses recettes de donateurs ordinaires, de citoyens comme vous et moi.

Quand le budget est alimenté par des subventions publiques ou par Pierre Bergé, on ne peut pas prétendre refléter la population française.

Un objectif pour SOS Racisme, cesser de dépendre des subventions publiques et trouver ses recettes de fonctionnement auprès des Français.

Pourquoi ne pas essayer le fundraising ?


Dominique Sopo a évoqué la « situation financière des plus délicates » de son association suite à son concert du 14 juillet. Manque de chance, SOS Racisme a raté une subvention de 100 000 euros venant du Conseil régional d’Île-de-France.

SOS Racisme dans le rouge ? L’Union a révélé dans un article au ton cinglant que Dominique Sopo, président de Sos Racisme, a envoyé une lettre le 21 juillet aux parrains et marraines de son association afin de récolter des dons. Dans son courrier, le président semble vouloir dire que certains sponsors du « Concert pour l’égalité » du 14 juillet, ont fait défaut mettant ainsi à mal les finances de l’association. « En raison de la défaillance de certains partenaires, cette opération nous met dans une situation financière des plus délicates, dont l'association doit sortir le plus rapidement possible », écrit-il.

Mais si SOS Racisme n’a pas pu avoir tous les financements nécessaires pour son concert, ce n’est pas forcément la faute aux autres. En effet, l’association aurait bien aimé recevoir l’obole de la Région Île-de-France. Elle a fait une demande en ce sens pour une subvention de 100 000 euros, a-t-on appris au Conseil Régional.

Mais, manque de pot, le dossier de l’association n’a pas pu déposer de dossier complet avant la réunion de la commission permanente du 8 juillet. Résultat, le chèque de 100 000 euros lui est passé sous le nez. Une jolie perte quand on sait que les dépenses 2009 de l’association (selon les comptes publiés au Journal officiel ) frôlent les 1,1 millions d’euros. Néanmoins, l’association a pu toucher une subvention de 160 000 euros de la Mairie de Paris, qui a en plus versé 30 000 euros pour le village associatif mis en place à l’occasion du concert et encore 40 000 euros pour son fonctionnement.

Du côté de Sos Racisme, on confirme l’existence du courrier de Sopo, tout en précisant que ce genre d'appel aux dons est fréquent. En revanche, pas de commentaire sur la question de la subvention ratée.

Mais même si l’association « aurait aimé avoir plus d’argent pour le concert », elle refuse de tirer la sonnette d’alarme sur sa situation financière. « C’est normal pour une association comme la nôtre quand on mène ce genre de projet », explique-t-on. On dénonce aussi la reprise de l’article de l’Union par des sites et blogs d’extrême-droite comme Fdesouche : « Pour eux, on aura toujours tort, qu’on gagne ou qu’on perde de l’argent ».

Quelle est la situation financière exacte de l’association ? En 2009, selon ses comptes parus au Journal Officiel, SOS Racisme a touché 904 596 euros de dons et subventions pour des dépenses de 1,095 millions d’euros pour la même année. La plus importante subvention est d’un montant de 348 000 et vient de l’Acsé (Agence pour la cohésion sociale et l’égalité des chances), un organisme public. Dès 2009, l’association connaissait des pertes financières de 3 660 euros plus exactement après un excédent de 31 778 euros en 2008. On apprend aussi que la dette de l’association était de 305 701 euros en 2009.

L’association qui compte une trentaine de permanents, n’est donc pas aussi riche qu’on pourrait le croire. Et la subvention ratée au Conseil régional d’Ile de France n’a pas arrangé ses affaires. Ironie du sort, le vice-président chargé de la culture à la Région n’est autre que… Julien Dray, un des fondateurs de Sos Racisme. Comme quoi, l’association ne peut pas avoir des potes partout.

Voici l'article de l'Union

La petite lettre du président Sopo SOS Racisme « en situation financière des plus délicates »…


Ruinée par le concert du 14 juillet, SOS Racisme est une association au bord du redressement judiciaire… Dominique Sopo essaie de s'en tirer en tapant ses contributeurs ordinaires, et donc majoritairement, les ministères, l'État, le contribuable. Une bonne idée en cette période de crise de la dette et de déficit public…

DIMANCHE dernier, dans nos pages Satyricon, nous expliquions que la très socialiste association SOS Racisme, pour être richement dotée, notamment en fonds publics, connaissait régulièrement des soucis en matière de « phynances ».
En effet, le budget annuel de cette annexe du PS tourne autour du million d'euros, dont un peu plus de la moitié sort de la poche des contribuables.
Cette année, SOS Racisme qui voulait « renouer avec sa capacité à imposer des problématiques dans la société française », pour reprendre les mots de Dominique Sopo et sans rapport avec la proximité des primaires et de la présidentielle, a reçu, en sus de ses financements ordinaires, 230 000 euros de subventions prises sur le budget supplémentaire de la mairie de Paris.
Un soutien qui se décompose comme suit : 160 000 euros de subvention pour le concert, plus 30 000 euros pour le « village dédié à SOS Racisme » et enfin 40 000 euros pour le fonctionnement de l'association, sans parler de la mise à disposition du Champ de Mars entre autres broutilles et attentions sympathiques de ce brave Monsieur Delanoë…
Résultat : la belle fête de la gauche et de l'égalité entre potes a réussi au-delà de toute espérance avec plus d'un million de personnes. Cependant, explique Dominique Sopo, dans un courrier qu'il aurait pu intituler SOS Pognon, « en raison de la défaillance de certains partenaires, cette opération nous met dans une situation financière des plus délicates, dont l'association doit sortir le plus rapidement possible. C'est pourquoi, connaissant votre attachement à notre action, je me permets de vous solliciter de façon exceptionnelle afin que vous puissiez nous aider à la hauteur de vos possibilités… »
Et le brave Sopo d'adresser sa bafouille aux ministères, histoire de voir l'État l'aider à financer une campagne présidentielle à la sauce des potes bien compris. Après tant d'années de mauvaise gestion sur fonds publics, c'est au contraire le moment de mettre un terme à ce gaspillage opéré sur le dos des contribuables. Laissons les parrains et marraines privés de SOS Racisme assumer les errements de la gestion Sopo et consorts.
L'État a déjà donné, comme le rappelait la Cour des comptes qui pointait de « graves insuffisances de gestion et de rigueur » sur les budgets 1997 à 2000 : « L'association n'aurait pas pu échapper à la mise en redressement judiciaire sans des concours financiers publics de caractère exceptionnel, subventions au titre de la réserve parlementaire de 1998, 1999, 2000, sur le budget de l'Éducation nationale et surtout en 2001, subvention des services du Premier ministre au titre des fonds spéciaux. »
Et comme l'État, c'est nous…
Philippe LE CLAIRE


lundi 29 août 2011

Les malheurs du Labour seront-ils résolus par le fundraising ?

Dans cet article du Guardian les journalistes Polly Curtis et James Ball dévoilent les conséquences pour les travaillistes britanniques d'un changement de la loi électorale britannique sur les dons aux partis politiques. Un choc pour le parti de gauche qui s'est longtemps reposé sur les versements effectués par les syndicats et quelques grosses fortunes. Les travaillistes vont devoir se réinventer et, pourquoi pas, tenter une solution nouvelle pour eux : le fundraising.


Labour could be ruined by proposed cap on political donations

Annual limit on funding would affect all major parties, with Labour facing a potential deficit of £13.5m


Labour could face financial ruin under plans being developed to cap the biggest donations to political parties, a Guardian analysis shows.

The independent standards watchdog is said to have agreed to recommend a new limit on donations, introducing an annual cap with figures ranging from £50,000 to £10,000 being considered. Such a move, in an attempt to clean up political funding, would end the six- and seven-figure donations to the Labour party from its union sponsors, as well as the Tories' reliance on the richest city financiers.

An analysis of five and a half years' worth of donations to the parties reveals the move would most dramatically affect Labour's funding base. If the £50,000 limit had been in place over the period, Labour's donations would have been reduced by 72%, the Conservatives' by 37% and the Liberal Democrats' by 25%.

A source close to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which has been reviewing the party funding system and is due to report in October, said it was trying to find a way to impose a cap without bankrupting any one party.

Some committee members are arguing for more public funding for political parties, but most believe this is not achievable in the current economic climate. The debate now appears to rest on whether union money should be treated as single large donations or as multiple small donations from individual members' affiliation fees, and whether those affiliation fees should automatically go to Labour.

Union members could be given the option to donate their fee to another party in what would be the most radical shakeup of Labour's relationship with the unions in a generation, which would be fiercely opposed by union leaders.

"The thing we are going to have to decide is whether to bite the bullet and suggest public funding," the source said.

The committee, chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly, is due to meet on Thursday to decide the core issues. Nick Clegg, who is responsible for political reform, has promised to start cross-party talks on funding reform after the committee reports.

There is deep suspicion in Labour that senior ministers want to use the reforms to destabilise the financial foundations of the party. A spokesman said: "We would expect the Conservatives to stick to their promise that they will recognise that this issue needs to be resolved through cross-party consensus.

"We value the link with the trade union movement and any attempt to rewrite our constitution and deprive Labour of millions of working people's voices would leave politics a poorer place."

A Conservative spokeswoman said: "If the purpose of a cap is to deal with the perception that money can buy influence then it must apply equally to individuals, companies and trade unions, from whom the Labour party receives 85% of funding and who get extensive policy concessions in return."

A Liberal Democrat spokesman insisted that the coalition would not impose a deal on the parties. "The history of party funding reform is littered with corpses. You have to do it in consultation with the other parties," the spokesman said.

The analysis also reveals the impact a potential cap of £50,000 would have on all the political parties' already fragile balance sheets. Party accounts show that the Conservatives' extravagant spending at the last election – outspending Labour by two to one – and restructuring of their pension liabilities left them temporarily more in deficit last year, with a shortfall of £6.2m in 2010, which would jump by around £13m to £19.6m had their donations been capped at £50,000.

Despite its lower spending, the potential impact of the changes on Labour finances would be more severe, with more than £16m of funding disappearing from party coffers, transforming a surplus last year of £3.2m into a £13.5m deficit.

The Liberal Democrats' deficit of £335,000 expands to £1.9m. Labour separately has outstanding debts of nearly £10m, the Tories £2.6m and the Liberal Democrats £411,000.

Previous negotiations over funding failed in 2007 with the parties unable to agree a cap. Those were chaired by Sir Hayden Phillips, a former civil servant.

Phillips said the problem of the party funding system was "chronic". He urged the parties to make changes before the next scandal emerged.

But he warned that the hurdles facing reform have grown, because of the perceived closer links of the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, to the unions and because the economic climate makes it harder to justify public funding.

"When I produced my report and negotiated with the parties, public funding wasn't a big bone of contention. I think there would be much more reluctance now even though I still believe it is the right solution. The political party system is essential to democracy. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to provide a stake in the way parties are is funded."