phosphorus2
No bio...
User ID: 3264
phosphorus2
17hr ago
...What SPLC is accused of doing, though, doesn't fit into any of these categories, and there's no clear violation of nonprofit law. What the indictment accuses them of is fraudulently soliciting donations by using the funds in a manner that is inconsistent with the mission statement as it appears on their website. If what they are accused of doing is a matter for Federal criminal charges, then practically every nonprofit in the country should be charged, mostly for stuff that is entirely unobjectionable.
Consider the following fictional example: The Allegheny Trails Alliance is a nonprofit whose advertised mission is to support trail maintenance and construction on public lands in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. They donate $10,000 in unrestricted funds to support a trail construction project in Garret State Forest in Western Maryland, which is outside of their technical operating area but is frequented by the same people who frequent trails in PA and WV. Is this wire fraud? What if they pay a contractor to perform invasive species removal at a state park where they have a maintenance contract? Is this wire fraud because it isn't directly related to trail construction or maintenance?
Inconsistent is one thing and I can see how there is wiggle room in the definition. But what they are being accused of is not just inconsistency with the mission statement, it is doing stuff directly opposed to the mission statement and directly opposed to what they said the money would be used for. From the indictment:
The Southern Poverty Law Center's ("SPLC") stated mission included the dismantling of white supremacy and confronting hate across the country. However, unbeknownst to donors, some of their donated money was being used to fund the leaders and organizers of racist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, and the National Alliance. The SPLC's paid informants ("field sources") engaged in the active promotion of racist groups at the same time that the SPLC was denouncing the same groups on its website.
Here is I think the strongest example of the SPLC doing the exact opposite of what they claim to do:
F-30 led the National Socialist Party of America, was the former director of a faction of the Aryan Nations, and a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. The SPLC website contained an "Extremist File" webpage for F-30 from which the SPLC solicited donations. Between 2014 and 2016, the SPLC secretly paid F30 more than $70,000.00. This overlapped the time period in which F-30 was featured on the SPLC's "Extremist File" webpage.
If the SPLC specifically opposes this guy, and solicit donations on the basis do they really get to just turn around and give him $70k? That seems to be the exact opposite of opposing him, no?
Or to ask in terms of your Allegheny Trails Alliance example - if ATA had instead secretly donated that $10,000 to "Mr. No Trail Maintenance Ever" would your answer to "is this wire fraud" still be no? Even when the ATA explicitly told its donors "Donate to us to stop Mr. No Trail Maintenance Ever", who then went on to oppose trail maintenance according to the ATA? Because that seems to me to be closer to the story in the case of F-30, like this was not simply doing something slightly outside of their scope as in your example.
phosphorus2
18hr ago
This is already questionable. The idea that paying for an informant inside of a group to provide you leaks and information that you report on, and even share with law enforcement if it hints at potential criminal behavior counts as "funding" the movement as a form of support is quite a stretch.
Ok there is the legal question here, and it kind of looks like they are cooked because lying to banks seems like a very easy thing to prove. But probably more important is the court of public opinion, and what future donors will think. And reading the indictment it really seems very bad, the SPLC was going far beyond just paying informants for information. They were directly funding people who they promised to fight against. They were directly funding behaviors and events they promised to fight against. They were directly funding leadership of organizations they promised to fight against. To the tune of millions of dollars.
Some examples from the indictment:
F-37 was a member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 "Unite the Right" event in Charlottesville, Virginia and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC. F-37 made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees. Between 2015 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-37 more than $270,000.00.
The SPLC billed this as a hate rally, they told their donors they were working against it, and they solicited donations from them on that basis. At the same time they were paying organizers, they were telling people they paid to attend, and they were coordinating transportation to the rally. They told their donors they were working to stop a hate group doing "hate speech" while they directly funded and coordinated with leaders of that group to do that very same thing they promised to stop, with money that they said would be used to stop it!
F-9 was affiliated with the neo-Nazi organization, the National Alliance and served as an F for the SPLC for more than 20 years. F-9's activities included fundraising for the National Alliance. Between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-9 more than $1,000,000.00.
This is what the SPLC tells its donors about the National Alliance. If the SPLC wanted to dismantle National Alliance why would they give their fundraiser a million dollars? How exactly could donating to a group be considered dismantling that group?
F-42 was the former chairman of the National Alliance. The SPLC website contained an "Extremist File" webpage about F-42 from which the SPLC solicited donations. Between 2016 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-42 more than $140,000.00. This overlapped the time period in which F-42 was featured on the SPLC's "Extremist File" webpage.
Is it honest and ethical to tell your donors you are working to stop this specific person and this specific organization while secretly paying that person, the former leader of that organization, $140,000? While giving their fundraiser (and presumably by extension that group) over $1,000,000? In what sense can the SPLC be said to be working against a man when they are directly funding him and indirectly funding his organization? In what sense is that not just flat out lying?
F-unknown was the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America. In an article published on November 22, 2013, the SPLC described the group as a "millennial reboot of what was once a serious domestic threat.
F-unknown was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and married to an Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan. F-unknown and their spouse were involved in litigation whereby the Ku Klux Klan applied to take part in the Adopt-a Highway program. During the course of the litigation, known payments were traced from the SPLC to F-unknown which exceeded $3,500.00.
These are the people who set policy, who make decisions, who control the entire organization. In a very direct sense they ARE the organization, more so than anyone else, and the SPLC is giving them, the KKK, the SPLC's biggest bogeyman, hundreds of thousands of dollars and indirectly funding their lawsuits.
The indictment is pretty short so I encourage you to read it if you think I am taking these out of context. This information was not in the OP so maybe you were not aware of it, but does seeing it now does that change your mind at all? If it was just paying informants for information then I agree that the funding allegations would be quite a stretch. But that is not really even close to what was happening here. They were directly coordinating and promoting and facilitating this stuff. It looks much closer to "self licking ice cream cone" than "informants for info".
That was not my assumption, and I don't see how what I wrote would give you that impression. Can you explain why you are interpreting it that way?
But either way, how exactly would that change anything? My objection, and the DOJ's, is that the SPLC was telling donors that it opposed a white nationalist rally, while in reality they were secretly promoting and helping to facilitate that rally. That the SPLC was not solely responsible for the rally does not mean they didn't spend money they promised would oppose the rally to instead secretly promote and facilitate the rally. Can you explain otherwise? What am I missing?
Likewise with your other two points on informants - can you explain how a high up informant being more useful somehow refutes the fact that the SPLC paid for and promoted and facilitated things they explicitly told their donors they opposed? How does facilitating transport to the rally oppose it? How does paying someone and supervising their racist posts oppose that exact person's racist posting? To be honest I don't see a connection at all, can you point it out for me?
I agree that paying people to snitch is more effective than not paying people and expecting them to snitch. I agree that getting people to snitch can be an effective way to dismantle an organization. I can even maybe see how giving over a million dollars to a fundraiser for a group you are fighting might make sense, like there is at least something there. But that is not all of what the SPLC is accused of doing, so I am going to ask again - in what sense can the SPLC be said to be working against a man when they are directly funding him and indirectly funding his organization? The SPLC says "here is a bad guy we oppose", the SPLC says "here is the donate button to oppose the bad guy", and then the SPLC goes and gives that money directly to the "bad guy". Huh?
Also not seeing the relevance of law enforcement here. While law enforcement using a technique may be a testament to that technique's effectiveness, it does not follow from that statement that the SPLC should do the same. The SPLC is not a law enforcement agency, and there are a lot of things inherent to law enforcement agencies which are not inherent to the SPLC. Those differences preclude the SPLC from operating in an at all similar manner.
If you are just trying to convince me that it is effective to pay informants, you don't have to. That was never questioned by me and I apologize if I gave you that impression because we are in agreement on that point. But I am also going to point out that your link really undermines that position. Did read any of it?
Like here is a quote from Rep. Hice:
This is not a quote in support of CI programs.
Even looking beyond the contradictions I don't see the relevance of the point and I don't see how this supports anything else you have said. How exactly does a House Oversight Committee reprimanding law enforcement for "inadequate oversight over the CI program" and " fail[ing] to sufficiently review, authorize, and implement controls for CIs’ activities and payments" support your position on the acceptability of the SPLC's informant program? If it is at all applicable, would it not be directionally arguing that what the SPLC did was not acceptable? Actual law enforcement agencies with Congressional oversight clearly have huge issues with their CI program, and given that the SPLC has zero external oversight of any kind should we not be more skeptical of their CI program?
More options
Context Copy link