Demanding Service or Servicing Demand? Charities,Regulation and the Policy Process

Charities in the Victorian era were characterised by the notions of service and pressure, acting as a shield and a sword for social change. Charities continue to pursue such policies, but do so at the behest of state agendas on public service provision and civic engagement. This article examines the regulatory and policy challenges of the service and pressure dynamic, focusing upon the provision of public services by charities, considering the decision of the Charity Commission in the cases of Trafford and Wigan , and the hurdles faced by charities wishing to pursue a political agenda alongside the state's concern with protecting against terrorism. The article concludes by considering the arbitrary choice made within the regulatory framework between acceptable and unacceptable political conduct and the focus upon good governance in charities and the issues which arise under section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998.     

Cue‐Taking in Congress: Interest Group Signals from Dear Colleague Letters

Why do some pieces of legislation move forward while others languish? We address this fundamental question by examining the role of interest groups in Congress, specifically the effect of their legislative endorsements in Dear Colleague letters. These letters provide insights into the information that members use to both influence and make policy decisions. We demonstrate that endorsements from particularly well‐connected interest groups are a strong cue for members with limited information early in the legislative process and help grow the list of bill cosponsors. As bills progress, such groups have less direct weight, while legislation supported by a larger number of organizations and a larger number of cosponsors is more likely to pass. Thus, we illuminate the usage of Dear Colleague letters in Congress, demonstrate how members use interest groups in the legislative process, and shed new light on the varying impact of groups on public policy.     

In Defence of Due Deference

The doctrine of deference permeates human rights review. It plays a role in defining Convention rights, in determining the nature of the proportionality test applied when analysing non-absolute rights, as well as in deciding the stringency of its application. The role of deference has recently been subjected to both judicial and academic criticism, some of which advocates the demise of the doctrine. This article develops a contextual account of deference that is justified for epistemic reasons, rather than reasons of relative authority. This conception is able to withstand current criticism and is modest enough to play a role in a range of different justifications and understandings of judicial review under the Human Rights Act. The article then provides a more detailed account of deference, taking account of the relative institutional features of the legislature, executive and judiciary, without running the risk that the court fails to perform its constitutional function of protecting individual rights.