Funding for associations: the RN wants to sort by opinion, the Republic must judge actions

Two days before its congress in Orléans, scheduled for 24 and 25 October, the Rassemblement national is once again highlighting a measure from its alternative budget: cutting state subsidies to associations it considers "politicised". Behind a budget line lies a particular conception of freedom of association, and it deserves close examination.

The facts

As Public Sénat reports this Thursday, the RN plans in its "multi-year recovery strategy" to recoup 2 billion euros from 2027 by reducing subsidies to associations which, in its view, do not serve the general interest. The savings would then reach 3.7 billion euros a year until 2031. According to government figures cited by the same outlet, France's 1.3 million associations received around 23 billion euros in public subsidies in 2023, of which 8.3 billion came from the state.

On Wednesday, on franceinfo, Marine Le Pen denounced a "myriad of politicised far-left associations" close to LFI and argued that only non-political organisations should be funded. Gironde senator Edwige Diaz was more explicit, according to Public Sénat:

In 2027, we will not have a short memory. — Edwige Diaz

She named the Planning familial and the Ligue des droits de l'Homme. Again according to Public Sénat, the party regards as "politicised" first and foremost the associations that call for votes against it, which includes those taking part this weekend in the anti-fascist village in Orléans. The case of trade unions, such as the CGT, has reportedly not yet been decided.

This rhetoric already has local precedents. In June, the new RN mayor of Carpentras, Hervé de Lépinau, cut the municipal subsidy to the Planning familial, which he accused of taking sides against his camp, as reported by Public Sénat and France 3.

The context is tense. Before the Senate on Wednesday, Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez said he expected "several tens of thousands of people" to protest against the congress on Saturday, with a security operation he described as "extremely substantial", according to Public Sénat.

The positions

The RN's argument is not absurd in itself and deserves to be set out fairly. Public money, it says, is not meant to fund partisan activism; an association campaigning against a party should not be paid for by its voters' taxes. Nor is the party alone. In 2023, Public Sénat recalls, Gérald Darmanin, then Interior Minister, said that subsidies to the LDH "deserved to be looked at", after the clashes at Sainte-Soline. In a country where the deficit remains high, scrutiny of every euro spent is also a legitimate requirement.

The associations targeted reply that they carry out concrete missions. The Planning familial provides reception, information and support on contraception and sexual health; the LDH has been defending rights in the courts and in public debate for more than a century. For them, defending rights is not partisan politics, and the proposed criterion would amount to punishing an opinion.

Analysis

A framework already exists. Since the law of 24 August 2021 reinforcing respect for the principles of the Republic, every association applying for a subsidy signs a republican commitment contract. Its seven commitments cover, among other things, respect for the law, equality and non-discrimination, the prevention of violence and respect for the symbols of the Republic, as the Associathèque explains. An association that breaches them can lose its funding. There is, however, no obligation of political neutrality: the law sanctions actions, not ideas.

This is where the RN's proposal changes in nature. Replacing the criterion of actions with that of opinion, and defining the offending opinion as opposition to the party in power, would turn subsidies into an instrument of reward or punishment. Gaullism has always regarded the state as the arbiter above parties, not as the tool of one of them. Freedom of association, enshrined by the Conseil constitutionnel in 1971, is one of the pillars of that tradition.

There is also a social issue at stake. Part of the public money paid to associations funds services the state no longer provides itself: help for isolated people, access to rights, health, integration into work. In some areas, the Planning familial is one of the few places offering information on contraception. Cutting this funding on ideological grounds would make users pay for a disagreement between politicians.

Finally, the figures raise questions. Targeting 3.7 billion euros a year from "politicised" associations alone implies that they weigh far more than the handful of organisations named. Either the scope is much broader than announced, or the savings are overestimated. The RN should say which associations, and on what criteria.

Conclusion

Transparency over subsidies is a shared goal, and everyone is entitled to demand that public money serve the general interest. But that scrutiny must remain impartial. Rather than sorting by opinion, why not entrust the evaluation of funding for associations to an independent authority, publishing its criteria and its conclusions, so that no majority, whichever it may be, can turn the funding of civil society into a partisan weapon?

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.