Can we criticise the government?

England and Wales: This page sets out the position in full. Scotland: covered. The rule sits in a different place — in the test for being a charity at all — and there is an extra lobbying register; see below. Northern Ireland: covered. CCNI has its own guidance, with the same line as CC9 and its own election spending figures; see below.

Yes — and the Commission says so first

Any charity can campaign and take part in charity political activity that furthers its purposes. The Charity Commission’s first answer is “Yes”. Its guidance on this, Speaking out (CC9), applies to England and Wales. Verbatim:

“Yes – any charity can become involved in campaigning and in political activity which further or support its charitable purposes, unless its governing document prohibits it.”

And: “A charity can make public comment on social, economic and political issues if these relate to its purpose, or the way in which the charity is able to carry out its work.”

Trustees should start there, and with the charity’s governing document, the one thing that can take the permission away.

This page stands on its own. Read it whenever the charity plans to speak out, whatever else in this hub you have done. A policy that opens with the bans will stop people doing fair work. The Commission does not want that. The limits are real, but they are narrower than most charities think.

CC9 splits two things. Campaigning means raising awareness and building support for your cause. Political activity means trying to change the law or government policy.

There is no limit on campaigning that helps your purposes. Political activity has one limit, set out next.

The test is never the topic

CC9 puts the limit like this, verbatim: political activity “must not be the continuing and sole activity of the charity”. Then, straight after: “A charity may choose to focus most, or all, of its resources on political activity for a period. The key issue for charity trustees is the need to ensure that this activity is not, and does not become, the reason for the charity’s existence.”

Read both halves. Most people only repeat the first.

Two of the Commission’s own examples show the line best. Both are about the same runway. They come out opposite ways.

Not allowed	Allowed
“An organisation set up to oppose a new runway at an airport applies for charity registration. The commission would reject the application as having a political purpose, as it would oppose the government’s policy on airports.”	“An organisation set up to protect the environment … carries out … some political activity aimed at securing a change in the government’s policy on airports. The commission would accept the application if it was clear that securing a change in government policy was not the continuing and sole activity of the charity.”

The first group exists to stop the runway. The second exists to protect the environment, and fights the runway as one job among many. The subject is the same. What differs is whether the politics is the organisation.

Two more limits, both from CC9:

• No party support. “A charity cannot give financial support, or support in kind, to a political party.”
• Policies, not parties. A charity “may give support to a specific policy which is advocated by a political party”. But “if a charity endorses a party because it agrees with one policy (say on climate change), it is effectively supporting the party as a whole.”

Whatever you do has to serve the charity. Acting in its interests is one of the 6 trustee duties the Commission sets out in CC3.

More of the Commission’s own examples

CC9 gives more worked examples. Here are six of them, in the Commission’s own words, because the exact wording makes them useful. CC9 itself has the rest.

Not allowed:

• “A chief executive of a charity, in that capacity, signs a letter to a newspaper advocating support for a political candidate. This would clearly be party political activity and, as such, is not permitted activity for charities.”
• “A charity with objects to establish young people in life funded a newspaper advertisement for an anti-war demonstration. The commission considered this a breach of trust, as the link between the advertisement and the charity’s purpose was too distant.”

Allowed:

• “A charity set up for the welfare of refugees and asylum-seekers identifies that changes to benefit regulations are leaving certain classes of asylum-seeker completely destitute… it undertakes political activity aimed at persuading government to make the necessary changes, with a petition delivered to Downing Street, a lobby of Parliament and other linked activity.”
• “A local and long established charity, set up to ensure the preservation of an English village… decides that it should devote all its resources to campaign against the proposal… This is acceptable political activity even though the charity plans to use all its resources for the time being, subject to review.”
• “A chief executive of a charity, in that capacity, is invited to speak at a fringe event at a party conference. This would be acceptable political activity providing he/she, and their trustees, are clear that being there supports the charitable purposes.”
• “A charity is invited by a political party to comment on its draft manifesto. The charity agrees to comment, but only on those aspects that impact upon its beneficiaries. It also makes the same offer to all the main political parties. This is acceptable.”

Notice what the two “not allowed” cases have in common. Neither is about the topic. One backs a candidate. The other is too far from the charity’s purpose.

What has gone wrong — and what has not

The Commission’s published cases point both ways. A list of only the charities that got into trouble would mislead you.

Criticism upheld. In April 2026 the Commission closed a case on City of Sanctuary UK and found no wrongdoing. In its words, “The charity’s criticism of aspects of government policy was permissible under charity law… and did not amount to a breach of charities’ obligation to remain independent of party-political bias.”

Where the line was crossed, or nearly:

• Legatum Institute Foundation (2018). A trade-policy report was found to promote a political negotiating position. The Commission said the trustees “crossed a clear line with this publication.”
• The Runnymede Trust (2021). No breach found, but the trustees were told they “must ensure the charity’s engagement with political parties and politicians is balanced.”
• Christian Voice (2024). The Commission had advised the charity to separate its work from the lobbying of a connected, non-charitable body. The trustees “did not take sufficient steps to act on this advice.” The result was an Official Warning under the Charities Act 2011 s.75A, in England and Wales, issued on 30 September 2024.
• Global Warming Policy Foundation (2024). The case closed only after its trading subsidiary took a new name. That split its non-charitable campaigning from the charity.

The last two share a pattern. A linked body did the campaigning, and the line between it and the charity blurred. A 2019 warning to another think tank is often quoted with these. No official record of it was found, so it is left out here.

During an election

The Commission’s election guidance, verbatim: “The principles described in CC9 continue to apply during an election period.” Some extra rules apply on top:

• "the charity must steer clear of explicitly comparing its views (favourably or otherwise) with those of the political parties or candidates taking part in the election"
• "If a charity is approached by a political party for permission to refer to the charity in their manifesto... the charity must refuse the request"
• "Charities must never support particular candidates even if those candidates belong to a range of political parties"
• "it is possible that you will need to register as a non-party campaigner with the Electoral Commission"

For referendums, the guidance adds: "Charities that are wholly or mainly funded by certain public funds are also subject to section 125 of PPERA which bans publicity in the 28 days before a referendum is held."

Election law applies to charities too. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 covers the whole UK. The 2014 “Lobbying Act” amended it, and neither exempts charities.

Most charity campaigns fall outside it. The Electoral Commission says a charity that keeps to charity law will, “in most circumstances”, not be caught. But, in its words, “In some circumstances, charities can and do carry out campaign activity that is regulated under electoral law”.

If your spending on caught activity goes over a threshold, you must register with the Electoral Commission. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the threshold is £10,000. In England it is £20,000.

Spending above it without registering is an offence. The charity commits it, and so does whoever authorised the spending:

• Who commits it: s.94(4): where the third party is not an individual, 'any person who authorised the expenditure to be incurred ... is guilty of an offence if he knew or ought reasonably to have known that the expenditure would be incurred in excess of that limit, and the third party is also guilty of an offence'. A charity that overspends unregistered commits the offence itself.
• The penalty: PPERA Sch 20, row 'Section 94(2) or (4) (exceeding limits on controlled expenditure)': 'On summary conviction: statutory maximum. On indictment: fine.' No imprisonment.

Once you are registered, spending limits also apply. We could not match the Electoral Commission’s published limits to the figures in the Act. So this page does not print them. Use the Electoral Commission’s own current figures.

Scotland: the bar is in the charity test itself

In England and Wales, CC9’s limit applies to a body that is already a charity. Scotland puts the bar earlier: in the test for being a charity at all.

The rule is in the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005, s.7(4)(c). A body does not meet the charity test if, verbatim, “it is, or one of its purposes is to advance, a political party.” So a Scottish body that advances a party cannot be a charity, or stay one.

After that, OSCR’s guidance works much like CC9. Scottish charities can campaign on political issues to further their purposes, if they keep to charity law and election law. That includes at election time. They may “support or oppose a policy advocated by a political party (but not support or oppose the party itself)”.

OSCR also asks trustees to think about the risk to the charity’s reputation.

OSCR does not repeat CC9’s words about putting all your resources into politics “for a period”. That may be because the Scottish test works on purposes, not on how much you do. The reason was not established either way. So do not assume OSCR is stricter.

Scotland also has the Lobbying (Scotland) Act 2016, with no English equivalent. Say your charity meets an MSP, a Scottish Minister, the Permanent Secretary or a special adviser, face to face or by video.

If the meeting is about Scottish Government or Parliament business, you must record it on the Scottish Parliament’s Lobbying Register. This is on top of UK election law. A Scottish charity can be caught by both.

No OSCR report on removing a charity for political purposes was found.

Northern Ireland: CCNI’s own guidance, and figures CC9 cannot give you

CCNI publishes its own guidance: Political activity and campaigning guidance for charities (EG036). It is dated 30 May 2019, and CCNI still lists it as current. Treat it as current. But check CCNI’s website for a newer version, most of all for the spending figures.

The line is the same as England’s, in CCNI’s words. Political activity “must not be the only way in which a charity advances its purposes”. A charity “may choose to focus most, or all, of its resources on political activity for a period of time however trustees must ensure that this activity is not, and does not become, the reason for the charity’s existence.”

The same prohibitions apply: no support for a party, no donations. On manifestos, EG036 says a charity “should refuse” a party’s request to be named — CC9’s election guidance says “must”.

EG036 adds four Northern Ireland election spending figures, under the same 2000 Act:

• the threshold for registering, the same as in Great Britain
• a spending limit across Northern Ireland before an Assembly election, with no separate limit per seat
• a limit for a Westminster election, for Northern Ireland as a whole
• a limit per seat for a Westminster election, on top of that

This page does not print them yet. They are not held as checked facts. Take them from EG036, section 5.2.1, and confirm them with the Electoral Commission.

One carve-out exists only in Northern Ireland. Processions and protest meetings notified under the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 are outside the Electoral Commission’s rules. That is because the Parades Commission regulates them. Charity-law duties of independence still apply.

No CCNI casework on political activity was found. That may mean there is none, or that the search missed it. It is not a clean record.

Write the campaigning and political activity policy

The deliverable is a short policy, adopted by the trustees, that applies CC9 to your own purposes. The annual return asks whether your charity has a campaigns and political activity policy. Its full list of questions is in what the annual return actually asks. A written one answers that question too.

1. Start with the permission. Say what the charity will campaign on, and how it furthers your purposes.
2. Name who can speak for the charity, and who signs off a campaign.
3. Set the independence rules: no party support, policy support offered to all parties, care with connected bodies.
4. Add an election section: what changes during an election period, and when you would check the registration threshold.
5. In Scotland, add the Lobbying Register. In Northern Ireland, point to EG036.
6. Set a review date, and a point at which the board checks that political activity has not become the charity’s reason to exist.

This is the last step in running the organisation. The policy’s review date is what brings you back to it. If the charity itself needs to change, go to the next part of the guide, Changing and closing. It starts with a step to diagnose what needs to change.

Common mistake: “charities can’t criticise the government”

A policy that opens with the bans puts people off fair campaigns. CC9’s first answer is “Yes”. Any charity can campaign, and take part in politics, where it helps its purposes. It can also speak out on issues linked to them. The City of Sanctuary UK case found criticism of government policy was allowed. Lead with the permission.

Common mistake: reading the sole-activity rule as “political activity can never be the main thing you do”

People repeat a blunter rule than CC9 sets. Political activity must not be “the continuing and sole activity”. But a charity “may choose to focus most, or all, of its resources on political activity for a period”. The test is never the topic. It is whether the politics is the organisation. Compare the two runway examples.

Common mistake: endorsing a party because it backs your one issue — or a candidate, or a manifesto reference

Backing a policy slides into backing whoever proposes it. You may support a party’s policy, but never the party. Endorsing a party for one policy is, in CC9’s words, “effectively supporting the party as a whole”. At election time, the Commission says you must refuse a request to be named in a manifesto, and never support a candidate.

Common mistake: letting a connected non-charitable campaigning body blur into the charity

Shared people, a shared name and shared websites make the line hard to see. Christian Voice got an Official Warning under s.75A.

Its trustees had not acted on advice to keep the charity apart from a linked body’s lobbying. The Global Warming Policy Foundation case closed only after its trading arm took a new name. A 2019 warning to another body is often cited, but could not be confirmed, so it is not used here.

Worked example

Saltmarsh Trust wants to campaign against a proposed change to benefit rules that would leave some of its beneficiaries destitute. Halfway through, a general election is called.

The campaign helps Saltmarsh’s purposes, so it is allowed. The Commission’s refugee example is close to this, petition and lobby included. The board may put most of its resources into it for a while. It minutes a review date, and a check that the campaign has not become the reason the Trust exists.

When the election is called, the extra rules apply. Saltmarsh does not compare its views with any party’s.

A party asks to mention the Trust in its manifesto, and Saltmarsh says no. It offers to comment on every main party’s draft, but only where it affects its beneficiaries. The board checks its spending against the threshold, using the Electoral Commission’s current figures.

The outcome is a campaigning and political activity policy, adopted by the trustees. It applies CC9’s own examples to the Trust’s purposes. The Trust also has a decision record for this campaign. And it can give a “yes” to the annual return’s question on whether such a policy exists.