tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post2314673355648119279..comments2023-10-17T15:56:22.827+01:00Comments on Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: Eric Joyce on charitiesChristopher Snowdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-20376959774829059102014-01-27T22:35:59.111+00:002014-01-27T22:35:59.111+00:00Taking the example re wind turbines. If a nonprofi...Taking the example re wind turbines. If a nonprofit actively promotes wind turbines, and is partially funded by the makers of wind turbines, is not that nonprofit acting as a kind of sales force? In which case, ought it not to be possible for any company to declare its sales force to be a nonprofit 'charity'?<br />The solution is actually quite simple, isn't it? 'Nonprofits' lobbying government MUST declare their funding sources publicly, and an assumption must be made that the nonprofit is acting on behalf of its funders, unless it can be proven otherwise. What that means is that 'nonprofits' would have no better status than the 'profits', nor would the amount of money they have available for their lobbying be of importance. <br />However, and this is a big problem, wealthy 'nonprofits' (like CRUK) can fund surveys and studies, while simple, proper charities have no such strength. <br />This serious problem becomes even more 'undemocratic' when industries (like the tobacco industry are excluded by decree, as per the BMJ's policy on research funded by tobacco companies. It seems to me to be likely, the BMJ's statement, that The Public Health Industry intends to take unto itself ALL public health research. Thus food companies, sugar companies, salt companies, fuel companies, etc, would be excluded. <br />Oh - with the possible exception of Big Pharm. After all, Big Pharm is beyond reproach, isn't it? It produces only 'healthy' drugs, does it not? <br /> Junican https://www.blogger.com/profile/03405543859782362078noreply@blogger.com