Populism And Relativism

Are limitations needed? If so, where to draw the line?
Where to draw the line between advocacy and public nuisance; Government censorship and moral responsibility, freedom of expression and civic responsibility?
It is suggested that there is a place for holding these tensions in society to counter the unchecked development of (extreme) events such as those which generated the WWII Jewish persecution and censorship in Germany by the Nazis resulting in Kristallnacht (Touro College libraries, 2014), or the takeover of public debate through populism and the danger of its decent into some form of Fascism.
There are many examples of small pressure groups significantly influencing government policy to effect the population at large, but for which

Much giving to think tanks and advocacy groups is motivated by the same goal.’(Callahan, 2017)

What about partial or full Government funding of some charitable organizations?
One example of full Government support can be seen in the ‘DisAbled Women's Network of Canada’ which was wholly sponsored by the Government Agency ‘Status of Women Canada’ but partnered with other charities such as the ‘Canadian Association for Community Living’ but ‘Like other women’s organizations, it was defunded by Status of Women Canada in 2006 when the federal government removed “advocacy”, “equity” and “access to justice” from Status of Women Canada’s mandate.’ (Rise Up!, n.d.)
There would seem some incongruity in how this stacks up against the need for full CRA compliance in advocacy.

Social Media and ‘External’ Money: The ‘Fly in the

A further option suggested by the ‘Policy Options’ paper, and which could be combined with the above solution, would be to widen the advocacy rules for charities to at least allow a measure of defined public policy advocacy, while still maintain the ten percent rule. (Annon., 2014) This would allow the relevant charity to have more influence in areas of policy change that are likely to significantly affect their ongoing ability to operate.
One other potential solution could be to throw off these controls completely. Many ‘Mutual Benefit and Self-Help Groups’ exist that would functionally perform as a charity but have no constraints on their political advocacy and attempts to influence politicians and the political process “Their social roles include: advancing pluralism by creating communities of acceptance; strengthening family and other relationships by providing support; encouraging closer ties within the community; teaching social skills; transforming victims into empowered agents; and encouraging political action.(emphasis mine)” (Reed & Howe, 1999, p. 19). Why should registered charities effectively be the only controlled group in