,
9 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
No, Mark Littlewood, who funds you to represent their interests in public life is not a private matter. Open information about political influence is essential to both democracy and free speech.
If they want to remain anonymous, they shouldn't use their money to try to change political outcomes.
It's good to see that the BBC is at last engaging with this issue, after a mere 10 years of asking. The question now is: will it uphold its own editorial guidelines, by insisting that lobby groups like @iealondon reveal who they're representing when they appear on its programmes?
Let them appear, let them make their arguments. But let us know at the same time who is funding them. Transparency and accountability are not optional extras in a democracy. They are fundamental.
But it seems the tide is now turning. Requesting transparency has been extremely frustrating, and in the past the BBC has stonewalled all such efforts. I hope this will now change. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Talking of which, it's extraordinary that the @TheIndGroup has registered as a private company, and will not become a political party until at least the end of this year. This means it can withold the identity of its funders, which gives it, well, a funny tinge.
Full transparency is not hard, regardless of your size or capacity. The only reason you wouldn't do it is because you are don't want other people to see who pays you. monbiot.com/registry-of-in…
What transparency has done for me is to add an extra layer of protection against taking money or gifts I wouldn't want people to know about. It tells me not to do anything in private I might be ashamed of in public.
I deliberately minimise my financial interests, because I feel it's essential that journalists should have as few constraints as possible. This means less income, but more freedom.
I know which I would rather have.
I know which I would rather have.
