… then nobody should really expect you to be forthcoming on your membership and sources of income. Nor on what you are doing.
If on the other hand (OTOH) you call your organisation “The Right To Know” then some degree less reticence might reasonably be expected of you.
“Neither Dorries nor Field, nor the Right to Know campaign – which was set up to lobby for support for the amendment – will reveal the details of who is involved with Right to Know and who has funded it. It has paid for a poll of MPs carried out by the private pollsters ComRes as part of a lobbying operation.
MPs who are opposing the amendment have called on Dorries to reveal the full sources of the backing for the campaign.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/02/anti-abortion-critics-nadine-dorries
Ms Dorries describes her blog – the closest one can expect to get to seeing exactly what a politician wishes to say directly to peoople in general – as 75% fiction.
The Independent yesterday noted that on BBC1′s World at One programme Ms Dorries stated that she did not have abortion figures with her (unusual, I’d think, for someone called there to speak about them) but proceeded to make some upgive an estimate.
Now 15 years ago
Dorries 200 000 40 000[1]
Independent, 189 100 167 916
after looking it up
The Grauniad also reports that the misleadingly named organisation includes or is associated with our colleague Dr Saunders of the CMF. A commitment to accuracy in statements is sometimes excused by references to religion, but not in doctors, I think.
[1] “may have been around 40 000″