“All’s Fair in Love and War” Has No Place in Advocacy
There is an old saying:
“All’s fair in love and war.”
Whether that was ever good advice is debatable.
But it is absolutely terrible advice for advocacy.
Advocacy is not war.
Other advocates are not the enemy.
Nonprofits are not supply depots to raid.
Coalition partners are not resources to exploit.
And a worthy mission does not give anyone permission to manipulate, take, redirect, or misuse the work, relationships, funding, data, volunteers, or resources of another organization.
There should be ethical boundaries.
There should be professional boundaries.
And there should be enough respect for the mission to understand that how we achieve something matters just as much as what we are trying to achieve.
Advocacy Is Not a Zero-Sum Game
One of the most damaging attitudes in advocacy is the belief that another organization’s success somehow diminishes your own.
They got the meeting.
They received the grant.
They were quoted in the article.
Their representative testified.
Their campaign gained attention.
Their legislation moved.
Their organization gained members.
So suddenly the relationship changes from cooperation to competition.
That is where bad behavior can begin.
People start withholding information.
They interfere with partnerships.
They try to pull volunteers away.
They take credit for another group’s work.
They use contacts obtained through a coalition for purposes the coalition never agreed to.
They manipulate shared resources.
They quietly redirect opportunities toward themselves.
Sometimes they even attempt to weaken another organization so their own group appears stronger.
That is not advocacy.
That is organizational politics wearing an advocacy T-shirt.
Do Not Steal or Manipulate Resources
Nonprofit and advocacy organizations often operate with limited resources.
Sometimes extremely limited resources.
Staff may be overworked.
Volunteers may be doing the job of paid employees.
Budgets may be tight.
Donor relationships may have taken years to build.
Legislative contacts may have been developed through countless meetings, emails, trips, and follow-ups.
Research may represent hundreds of hours of work.
Coalitions may have spent months building trust.
Those resources should not be treated as communal property simply because organizations work on similar issues.
If another organization gives you access to something for a specific purpose, respect that purpose.
That can include:
Donor lists
Membership lists
Volunteer networks
Coalition mailing lists
Research
Policy briefs
Data
Graphics
Training materials
Event registrations
Conference contacts
Grant information
Internal documents
Meeting access
Media relationships
Organizational partnerships
Access is not ownership.
Being copied on an email does not mean you inherited the contact list.
Participating in a coalition does not mean every relationship within that coalition is yours to use however you want.
Receiving someone else’s research does not mean you can remove their name and publish it as your own.
Being introduced to a congressional office does not mean you should immediately bypass the person who made the introduction and present yourself as the original relationship.
And learning about a funding opportunity through another nonprofit does not give you permission to interfere with their application or manipulate the process for your own benefit.
Shared access does not erase ethical boundaries.
Relationships Are Resources Too
This is something advocacy organizations sometimes overlook.
Relationships have value.
A trusted relationship with a congressional staffer may have taken years to develop.
A partnership with another nonprofit may have required months of negotiation.
A family willing to share its story may trust one particular advocate because that advocate earned that trust.
A donor may support an organization because of a long-standing relationship with its leadership.
Those relationships should not be treated as prizes waiting to be captured.
If someone introduces you to a contact, behave professionally.
Do not immediately cut the person who introduced you out of the relationship.
Do not imply that someone else’s connection is yours.
Do not use an introduction for purposes substantially different from what was discussed without communicating about it.
Networking is part of advocacy.
So is basic professional courtesy.
Coalition Does Not Mean Takeover
Coalitions are especially vulnerable to this problem.
The entire purpose of a coalition is to combine resources around a shared goal.
That requires trust.
Organizations may contribute research.
One group may handle legislative strategy.
Another may manage communications.
Another may provide subject-matter experts.
Another may bring families willing to tell their stories.
Another may have established relationships on Capitol Hill.
That cooperation works only if participants respect boundaries.
A coalition should not become an opportunity for one organization to quietly absorb everyone else’s resources.
If organizations begin believing that participation means surrendering their contacts, ideas, donors, volunteers, or identity, they will stop participating.
And then everyone loses.
Coalitions should multiply resources.
They should not redistribute them through opportunism.
Do Not Manipulate Volunteers
Volunteers are another area where ethics matter.
Many advocacy organizations depend heavily on volunteers.
Those volunteers donate time, expertise, travel expenses, emotional labor, professional skills, and personal relationships because they care about the mission.
They are not property.
But they also should not be deliberately manipulated.
There is nothing wrong with a volunteer working with multiple organizations.
In fact, many experienced advocates do exactly that.
The ethical problem arises when organizations intentionally use access to another group’s volunteers to undermine that group.
Recruiting is one thing.
Poaching through deception, pressure, or manipulation is another.
Respect the volunteer.
Respect the organization.
Respect the relationships involved.
The advocacy world is small.
People notice patterns.
Credit Is a Resource
Another form of theft does not involve money at all.
It involves recognition.
Someone develops an idea.
Someone else writes the policy proposal.
Another person spends months researching it.
A nonprofit creates the framework.
A coalition builds support.
Then, once the idea becomes successful, someone else appears and presents it as if it magically originated with them.
That may not show up on a financial statement.
But it is still taking something that belongs to someone else.
Giving credit costs nothing.
Refusing to give it can cost credibility.
If an organization developed the proposal, acknowledge them.
If another advocate provided the research, cite them.
If a coalition created the strategy, say so.
You do not become smaller by acknowledging other people’s contributions.
You usually become more credible.
Funding Requires Even Higher Standards
Money can make these issues even more serious.
Nonprofits have legal, fiduciary, contractual, and ethical responsibilities regarding how funds are used.
Restricted funds should be used for their intended purpose.
Grant-funded resources should follow the grant requirements.
Donor intent should be respected.
Organizational resources should not quietly be redirected for personal benefit or another organization’s benefit.
People should not exploit nonprofit infrastructure simply because they have access to it.
And leadership should never create the attitude that anything is acceptable as long as it brings more money, influence, or attention to the organization.
That is how mission-driven organizations lose their way.
The mission should guide the organization.
It should never become the excuse used to justify questionable behavior.
“But We’re Fighting for the Same Thing”
That may be true.
It still does not make unethical behavior acceptable.
Two organizations can support the exact same legislation and still owe each other professional respect.
Two advocates can care deeply about the same population and still have different strategies.
Two nonprofits can compete for the same grant while behaving ethically.
Two groups can disagree about policy without trying to sabotage each other.
Supporting the same cause does not mean boundaries disappear.
And disagreeing about strategy does not transform someone into an enemy.
There should be room in advocacy for cooperation, competition, disagreement, and independent work without turning everything into political warfare.
Winning the Battle While Damaging the Movement
Sometimes unethical tactics produce short-term victories.
Someone gains access.
Someone gets credit.
Someone gets the funding.
Someone becomes the public face of an issue.
Someone pushes another organization aside.
For a while, it may even look successful.
But advocacy depends heavily on relationships and reputation.
Eventually people remember who can be trusted.
They remember who shares information responsibly.
They remember who gives credit.
They remember who honors agreements.
They also remember who manipulates relationships.
Who takes resources.
Who uses coalitions for personal gain.
Who disappears when work needs to be done but appears when cameras arrive.
Who treats every partnership as an opportunity to gain an advantage.
You may win the individual battle.
But you can damage the larger movement in the process.
The People We Advocate For Deserve Better
This is ultimately the part that matters most.
Advocacy organizations do not exist primarily for the organizations themselves.
They exist because people need something changed.
Veterans.
Military families.
Surviving families.
Caregivers.
People with disabilities.
Patients.
Children.
Communities.
Whatever population an organization serves, those people should not become collateral damage in organizational turf wars.
They should not lose legislative opportunities because advocates cannot share credit.
They should not lose resources because nonprofits are fighting over ownership of an issue.
They should not watch coalitions collapse because organizations are manipulating one another behind the scenes.
They should not have to wonder whether decisions are being made because they are good for the community or because they are good for someone’s organization, reputation, or career.
The mission is supposed to be bigger than that.
There Are Lines You Should Not Cross
Advocacy can be aggressive.
It can be passionate.
It can challenge powerful institutions.
It can involve hard negotiations and uncomfortable conversations.
None of that requires abandoning ethics.
There are still lines.
Do not steal another organization’s work. Give credit where due.
Do not manipulate its resources.
Do not misuse confidential information.
Do not exploit donor or membership lists.
Do not intentionally interfere with partnerships.
Do not claim someone else’s research as your own.
Do not use coalition access to undermine coalition members.
Do not manipulate volunteers.
Do not misrepresent how you obtained a relationship or opportunity.
Do not sabotage another organization simply because you see it as competition.
And do not excuse any of it by saying that the cause is too important to worry about hurt feelings.
This is not about hurt feelings.
It is about integrity.
Final Thought
“All’s fair in love and war” might make a catchy excuse for questionable behavior.
It does not belong in advocacy.
The advocacy world is already difficult enough without organizations and advocates treating one another like enemy combatants.
We can compete for funding without becoming unethical.
We can disagree without becoming destructive.
We can build our own organizations without dismantling someone else’s.
We can develop relationships without stealing them.
We can share resources without exploiting access.
We can advocate aggressively without abandoning professional integrity.
Most importantly, we can remember that the people and causes we claim to serve are more important than who gets the credit.
If advancing your mission requires manipulating another nonprofit, taking someone else’s resources, undermining another advocate, or crossing ethical boundaries, then somewhere along the way the mission stopped being the priority.
Advocacy should make systems better.
We should not become another system people have to protect themselves from.
