The foundations demand the patronage law frustrated by 23-J

They were very close to her. The world of foundations and non-profit entities was one step away from seeing the approval of a patronage law that, despite being insufficient, should promote donations and crowdfunding, a long-battle milestone that always runs up against the wall of the Ministry of Finance.

There were two days left for it to be ratified in the Senate after having been approved in Congress with the vote in favor of the entire parliamentary arc except for two abstentions. But the advance of the general elections has stopped the process promoted by the PDeCAT.

Now, the entities that were active during this process – the Plataforma pel Patronage and the Spanish Association of Foundations – have submitted a petition for it to be approved by Royal Decree Law, “as long as it affects entities that work with environments of greatest need. And while it was two days away from being ratified by the Lower House”, explains Maite Esteve, director of the Fundació Catalunya Cultura.

La Vanguardia has brought together six representatives of culture, sports, research and social action to discuss what should be the minimum requirements of this law, now stopped.

Maite Esteve (director of the Fundació Catalunya Cultura): The reform left out a very important point that we will now fight with the new proposal: the pedagogy of patronage that must be done at a Spanish level. We see it with the French Aillagon law of 2003, which guaranteed this national knowledge about what patronage means, who can be a patron and what it contributes to all social classes. Because here in Spain we still consider it something that corresponds to business elites or specific people who carry out great patronage actions, which has reverted to great criticism of the concept instead of great praise.

Eugènia Bieto (president of the Catalan Foundations Coordinator): I agree. The law that was going to be approved fell short in many things but represented great advances. For example, the donation in kind, that is, that law firm that does not charge a non-profit organization for legal matters. This type of donation was not collected in any way, it could not have any tax treatment. On the other hand, the law introduced an increase in the ceiling to be deducted: it went from 150 to 250 euros, which, obviously, left us still far from France, not to mention the Anglo-Saxon countries, but it was progress. Now we are very disappointed, it will take two years to make it happen again.

Valentí Oviedo (General Director of the Liceu): You say, Eugènia, that it is a disappointment for the sector, but it would have to be a disappointment for the people. If it is not yet a disappointment for society, it is because the idea that being a patron implies that they are giving you wings to participate socially in what happens in the community is not taking root. What people do not understand is that patronage can mean that “I get involved socially in what interests me.” Someone with a family member with autistic disorder may want to participate in such a foundation.

So you have to go person to person, and generate that “and where do you participate?”. Because the first question they ask you when you go looking for a patron is not “how much tax relief”. The primary question is “why do I have to get involved, what does opera, sport or art bring me; how it connects me. The State or the institutions have to say: “We want society to get involved and participate”. In fact, the positive thing about this law that has not come to fruition is that it is the first time that the Treasury has been willing to listen and want to understand.

Gerard Esteva (President of the Union of Sports Federations of Catalonia): What the new law allowed was the democratization of patronage. What in the past could only be done by large companies or the big bourgeoisie, now anyone who wanted to participate could do it. In the case of sport, there were people who got very involved: everyone was a volunteer. We are suffering a beastly crisis throughout Europe, but especially in Catalonia. Catalonia is one of the European regions with the most sports entities. Our umbrella alone brings together 71 federations and 12,000 non-profit entities, which manage more than 800,000 people who practice it every day. But we have a crisis of leaders, we are running out due to the crisis that there is also volunteering. Therefore, either we have laws that make life easier for us or, otherwise, this structure that we have been able to create as a country will become more and more difficult. If we really want a civil society and believe in it, there will have to be legislation that allows it to survive.

M.E.: The key is Finance. But it is that we are talking about an expense of 15,000 million that non-profit entities make compared to a fiscal cost of 700 million. The entities support a welfare State that, otherwise, the cost would have to be assumed by the State.

Marko Daniel (director of the Fundació Miró): It is important to spread the idea that patronage is not only for the able-bodied, but for everyone. And not only through the crowdfunding of the 250 euros, but with even smaller and more ordinary contributions, which become a habitual attitude. Germany, for example, has a history of the kunstverein, civic associations that were born in the 19th century to promote art in the city.

If we talk about the US, there they say that the American state does not contribute to culture. However, for people specialized in sponsorship, it is not entirely true: there is a very important contribution to culture in the fact of not collecting. This is the key. In our common European culture I like a balance between public contributions – our money going to important uses – and well-developed sponsorship to help us.

Ainhoa ​​Grandes (president of the Macba Foundation): The key is the economic sustainability of all the institutions. Self-financing is increasingly relevant in cultural entities: public-private collaboration is fundamental and possible. The Gala-Salvador Dalí Foundation, for example, is more sustainable thanks to patronage and saves money for the State.

The Prado is reaching 50% self-sustainability. the Guggenheim, at 62%. And when that goes up, we save the part of the Ministry of Culture. But the Treasury claims its part anyway! The term patron must be destigmatized: that the institutions give public recognition to those who help. And that the Treasury does not see that it stops collecting. It’s a lie: in the medium term you will spend less.

V.O.: It is that the ceiling for tax relief should have been multiplied by 10 and go from 150 euros to 1,500, not from 150 to 250. That is, a 90% tax relief must be on a minimum of 1,500 euros, to start stimulating the participation. If that is so, everyone, micro or macro, will find a way to stimulate people’s participation. For example: do you want to support an artist, or a new production? We’ll make it up. But it is true that the management of deducting the 150 euros is huge for the result you get. If you have to make an effort to retake the law, at least the individual donor game starts at 1,500 euros.

M.E.: Well, we asked that 300 euros be the amount on which to apply the 90% tax relief and there was no way. The day before taking it to Congress we were still arguing. We have a study carried out that indicates that this step from 150 to 250 is ridiculous, it does not lead to more donors exponentially. What it does mean is that people who already donate donate a little more to you. But at least we multiplied consciences, to show that we can all be participants in patronage.

A.G.: My students at the university who want to be future managers think that patronage is something for the rich. The mindset is not changing. The key is to define what patronage is. In the end, it is a commitment to the community, no one asks how much tax relief, but it also encourages if the tax relief is notable. This is what happened in France: tax relief of 60%, or the United Kingdom, 70%. There people are able to do it.

M.E.: The funny thing is that people don’t want to certify themselves with our Impulsa Cultura seal, designed for patrons who support culture to gain muscle. The thought is the opposite: “I help, but don’t say it because ten will come to me.” If you go to France, there it is all “I donate!”, with pride.

G.E.: One of the big problems in Catalonia is that it is one of the countries with the least investment and the most success, at least in sport. We have a cost per inhabitant of 0.2 euros. In Sweden they are at 250 euros per inhabitant; France, in 170; Italy, in 300. The president of the IOC congratulates us, of course, with so many Olympic medals and so little investment. We have to claim to be equal to more modern European countries, where quotas can be deducted. It would help us to reinforce the contribution.

A.G.: But patronage has to be a pure and simple contribution, without consideration.

M.D.: What is done all over the world with quotas is that if you pay, for example, 1,000 euros, 132 are considerations and the rest is tax deductible. That people understand. In patronage there is always to some extent an element of transaction, yes, but it really responds to commitment. And in this sense, I think we have made a culture change here, towards a culture that giving is important. One thing that has been done in England is talking about giving, about giving, this very human thing that gains emphasis by separating it from the transactional economic element.

A.G.: Yes, but now companies have professionalized their corporate social responsibility. There is a manager who asks what his company gets in return.

M.D.: But while before in the art world it was completely normal for any company to look for its name on the exhibition poster, now there is much more involvement in the elements of social impact that we do in the world of culture.

E.B.: We have to distinguish between corporate and individual donation. Many years ago there was no culture of giving or asking. The latter was the first great battle, that is, to professionalize fundraising. Now we need to create a culture of donating, because in the end you go to the Liceu and if you look closely you see that the donor companies are exactly the same as in the Palau de la Música, in Sant Pau, etc. But it is that there is no longer just that emotional part of the Catalan company that wants to raise this country, something that has existed since the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries. What has happened is that there has also been a business movement: listed companies are now required by law to present a non-financial report, so that it is seen that making money is not the only objective. Because if they only set this goal, they lose the ability to attract talent. Well, more and more people want to work in companies that distribute dividends. And that has favored the issue of donations since they may not only want to earn money. Now it remains to go for individual giving.

V.O.: At the Liceu we have been working on individual giving for a couple of years and it is working very well. Eugenia is right. It is through the individual that the attitude of large corporations moves. Because when the movement to donate part of the people who work in an organization, ends up transforming the large corporation. That is why that small door at the passage from 150 to 250 is so important.

A.G.: It is surprising, but Spain is a country of great donors.