That would be from the Taxpayers' Alliance. After all, no pressure group expends more energy (and expensive resources) demanding transparency from others.
In order to legitimise their ludicrous claim to somehow represent taxpayers, the Taxpayers' Alliance takes all steps to cover up it's donor list and ensure that we have little idea of where they get their funds.
And why is their claim to represent taxpayers ludicrous? Well, it would be fair to conjecture (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that the TPA's donor base are the kind of people that have offshore arrangments of one kind or another.
From 'The Other Taxpayers' Alliance' site:
It's simply not true that all political organisations are secretive about their funding. Most declare their income and expenditure, and some give a break-down of income sources, including donors. The TPA does neither. It publishes abbreviated accounts which means income and expenditure are withheld. The last time it published full accounts was in 2006, when it recorded an income of £130,000. But the current organisation has ten full-time staff across two offices, which suggests either its income has jumped substantially or it is loaded with debt.
The centre-left campaign group, Compass, by contrast, publishes a great deal in its annual report (which can be readily downloaded from its publications page) - and goes beyond that which is statutorily required. Thus you can learn how much was earned through members' subscriptions, members' donations, grants from various sources, etc, and how that money was spent. And---"in the interests of transparency"---all donors who gave £5,000 or more are listed, along with the amount donated.
If Compass can do it, then the TaxPayers' Alliance---which claims to stand for transparency and probity - can do it too. No, it is not legally obliged to do so, but the TPA should practice what it preaches
This shady and secretive Right-wing pressure group needs flushing out. The journalists who uncritically publish their misleading press releases should be derided by their colleagues.
