In the wake of the Canadian think tank’s recent report on “circular lobbying” by government-funded child-care advocacy groups, the senior fellow and researcher talk to Michael E. Hartmann more about the risks of government funding of private groups in civil society—to their independence in particular and democratic pluralism in general.
A June report from the Canadian think tank Cardus, From Advocates to Insiders: Government Funding and Advocacy Groups in the Child Care Debate, envisions a healthy civil society that depends on Canvoluntary organizations rooted in the citizenry, funded primarily by it and thus from private sources, and able to speak independently of government. As a specific case study of the state of that civil society in Canada, using parliamentary hearings on legislation that passed and greatly expanded the Canadian federal government’s role in child care, the report examines the 44 groups invited to testify on the measure, comparing their positions on the bill with their federal funding. Thirty-eight groups supported the bill; six opposed.
Nearly two-thirds of the organizations had received federal funding from 2020 through 2024, when the measure became law, From Advocates to Insiders finds. During that period, those supporting the bill quite lopsidedly received more than $1,300 (in Canadian dollars) in federal funding for every dollar received by those opposing it, as reflected in the AI-generated figure below. “In 2023, the year in which the hearings were conducted,” according to the report, “none of the six groups that opposed the bill received any federal dollars, whereas twenty-three of the thirty-eight groups supporting the bill received some.”
Some witnesses from groups supporting the measure participated in developing the policy they were asked to evaluate.
This kind of “circular lobbying” is concerning, according to From Advocates to Insiders, by Andrea Mrozek, Étienne-Alexandre Beauregard, Jenna Lodder, and Lisa Richmond. “Since civil society is by definition a sphere distinct from government, public funding transferred to civil-society organizations puts at risk their ability to function independently and serve as a countervailing force,” they write. “Furthermore, when the line between the state and civil society is blurred, public trust in society’s institutions can suffer.”
Mrozek and Beauregard were nice enough to join me for a recorded conversation last month. Mrozek is a senior fellow in Cardus’s family-policy program and one of Canada’s best-known critics of universal government child-care policy. Before joining Cardus, she served as executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, after earlier working as a journalist in Canada and Europe.
Beauregard is a Québec-based Cardus researcher who previously served as a speechwriter for and strategic-planning adviser to the Québec premier. He is the author of three books on political thought, including the forthcoming Anti-Civilization: The Collapse of Society & the Case for the Common Good.
In the first part of our discussion, which is here, we talk about the Cardus report and what it can tell us about the state of Tocquevillian civil society in Canada. The just more than 15-minute video below is the second part, during which we talk more about the risks of government funding of private groups in civil society—to their independence in particular and democratic pluralism in general.
“If you are receiving a large percentage of your funding from government, it can skew even your own purpose as what was formerly a grassroots organization and you can start to attune it more to what the government demands or desires,” Mrozek tells me. “You can start hiring more lobbyists to get more government funding, as contrasted with program officers who are actually dedicated to your” originally intended mission. “I think there’s a lot of opportunity costs that happen there.” With circular lobbying, I think there’s a profound loss to civil society, possibly also a loss to government, as well.”
Beauregard underscores the same point. “Your added value as an autonomous voice in civil society gets lost.”
Some in America argue that nonprofit groups that are closely, including financially, involved with government can positively affect governmental policymaking. Might it actually be a good thing, from their standpoint, if groups in civil society can occasionally “tell government” what it should or shouldn’t do? “I would consider it a huge success if Cardus got to tell the government what to do, on child care” answers Mrozek, showing her position is not anti-advocacy per se—“provided that we maintained our solid base of grassroots supporters and people who support the vision and we are doing it independently,” she immediately qualifies.
“There are some contexts where certain government funding can be virtuous,” Beauregard notes, “but the big difference is that it has to be through bottom-up types of funding like tax credits, or like matching funds. Because the problem that we outline is that when the government is the one setting the agenda … you cannot have a neutral and autonomous civil society.” The citizen should always be “in the driver’s seat.”
Aren’t they just naively nostalgic for a civic world that no longer exists? “It’s good to be a nostalgic for democratic principles. It’s good to be nostalgic for principled pluralism,” Mrozek answers. “I think it’s even fair-minded and good for me to say, I don’t support the direction child-care policy took, but I do support people advocating for it on their own” terms. “It’s good to be nostalgic for a return to some form of educated” discussion and debate. “It wasn’t that long ago that we had this. … When I started my career—and I’m not yet a dinosaur, right?—like 20 years ago, we had better aspects of pluralism in the debate. …
“[S]tepping back from child care specifically,” she concludes, “trying to create civil society that is strong isn’t some esoteric thing. It is actually part of what makes our lives qualitatively better.”
