There are certain words which in the charity world have gained a completely different meaning from the one they do in the rest of the world. Independence is one of them.

Working with our Charity Parliamentary Monitor, I’ve been struck by just how much harder it has become for charities to get through to MPs since the 2010 general election. With issues surrounding the economy dominating the agenda and a deluge of legislation and policies, not to mention the internal battles among the coalition parties, many charities are struggling to be heard. But how did this happen? And what can charities do about it?

As a researcher on Parliamentary matters, I am only too aware of the importance of the relationship between charities and MPs. But three separate events suggest a worrying new direction in the way MPs view charity lobbying.

Someone once said to me Bill Gates should actually give some money to charity. I politely pointed them in the direction of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; it’s now given $23.6 billion in grants. But on a more serious note, many charities have links with celebrities, be it as a patron or having been set up by one. But what are the benefits? And do they outweigh the risks?

Trust is of paramount importance to charities. It is a major factor underpinning the donations of time and money by millions of people every year. This time and money is the lifeblood of a charity and to keep people onside, the trust has to be maintained. But how do you do that?

The Football League has announced a new fundraising partnership with Prostate Cancer UK, which will see the 72 clubs taking part in various fundraising activities throughout the season.

Ten months after an election that led to a new Government and a third of newly elected MPs at Westminster, knowing how best to engage with MPs remains unclear. The picture is complicated further by the wider context of funding cuts, bringing both added impetus for campaigning and making campaigning more difficult, along with uncertainty about what the ‘big society’ might mean for campaigning. As we shall see, questions have been raised about the very legitimacy of charities campaigning, as opposed to delivering services.

The Charity Commission defines campaigning in two ways: firstly, raising public awareness of a particular issue and influencing public opinion; secondly, political activity to influence government policy or legislation. Here we focus on the second kind of campaigning, and the question of involving the public for the purpose of influencing policy or legislation. Of course, it’s important to note that these two kinds of campaigning are by no means mutually exclusive, and often run hand in hand.