The Southern Poverty Law Center started as a public-interest law firm in the South representing, poor people who couldn't represent themselves in court. It's founder had a hated uncle who was in the KKK and the SPCL became focused on representing victims of KKK action, and drove the KKK into bankruptcy in the 1980s which did help some victims, but left the organization impoverished without being able to collect its legal fees. It moved on to broader civil rights actions and many of lawyers in my firm had done pro-bono cases with them. One case they worked on when black men were accused of raping a white woman, even though there was no evidence whatsoever that they had done this, but they were still convicted and sentenced to death. They got the verdict overturned.This is exactly the kind of thing that an organization like the SPLC should exist to do and is a noble calling, but that isn't their focus today.
The 1990s, saw the SPLC was still focused on these groups that were traditionally racist such as skinheads neo-Nazies, etc.. So far so good. That helped somewhat in raising money for the SPLC. These racist groups really generate much in the way of legal recoveries, but more importantly the SPCA no longer accepted any fees or share in legal judgments awarded to clients it represents in court. It really can't get better as long as you have donations coming into your organization to fund litigation in the future.
So then comes the 2000s and into the bullseye comes Moms for Liberty, the Family Research Council, the Alliance Defending Freedom, organizations that oppose Critical Race Theory, parental rights movements, parents that oppose the daughters playing against transgenders, and just about any group opposing big government or aligned with conservatives. Also, around 2011 they start a list labeling these organizations hate groups.
Now these are groups that have money if you sue them and win, but they also have major resources to fight you, so you need to raise money. So how best to raise money? Take your case to donors to fight hate groups, and it worked.
Then, a former employee came forward and said he was part of the con, that the hate accusations are a highly profitable scam meant to bilk donors. Basically there were hate gruops that were labelled as groups that SPLC was suing and indenturing as groups and asking for donations to fight. For example, a barbershop owner that displayed a confederate flag was sued as a hate organization, which also allowed the SPLC to claim a dramatic rise in hate crime that they were fighting.
In 2019, the founder of the SPLC was fired by a board group after a review led by Michelle Obama's former chief of staff. It is rumored that the study found a pattern of data manipulation designed to enhance donations, not to mention sexual misconduct and harassment, and even internal racism. A new management team was put in place. That said, the focus become even more political with the development of super PACs and SPLC was seen as a political advocate.
Then the conservative gruops started suing the SPLC for defamation by listing them as hate groups. The Biden Administration then responded with FBI investigations of these groups, but the FBI came back saying while some of these groups were wacky, they were not hate groups under any legal definition. And the lawsuits were making past the pleading stage so now the SPLC would have to come out of pocket big time.
Enter a guy named Todd McMurtry. He represented the kid named Nick Sandmann wearing a MAGA hat in the Lincoln Memorial confrontation. He had major multimillion dollar settlements against media companies and now joins the fight against the SPCA with his big war chest. Which he needs because the SPLC has (had?) a billion dollar of surplus due to ideological donations, which makes it hard to fight, but also makes it a big target for plaintiff attorneys, and he is leading a big time plaintiff attorney group.
Then came the news that the SPLC had paid off or had "spies" infiltrate hate groups and participate in hate crimes or other actions. From a litigation perspective, this raises the issue of whether there was entrapment by the SPLC or whether they in fact funded hate activity,, which may be offensive to some donors or the legal profession. .
The federal government recently indicted the SPLC on numerous charges mostly related the fraud and other crimes against donors. The case highlights a broader issue in the nonprofit sector: how far organizations can go in pursuing their missions while maintaining transparency and accountability to donors. The use of paid sources or informants is not uncommon in investigative contexts, including journalism and law enforcement. I'm not aware it is illegal for a law firm to have paid informants in a potential defendant (though there is a federal money laundering charge), though I could see a major cilvil lawsuit. However, when such practices are funded by charitable donations, questions arise about disclosure, donor intent, and whether financial reporting accurately reflects how funds are used. The outcome of the case may hinge not only on whether the payments occurred, but on how they were represented, and whether those representations meet the legal standards required under federal fraud and state statutes dealing with non-profits. The federal government allegedly wants donations disgorged which could wreak havoc on the SPLC, especially with the SPLC engrossed with plaintiff attorneys.
CharityWatch and other charitable organization watchdog groups now currently assign the Southern Poverty Law Center an "F" rating (or comparable bad ratings). Now with right wing boycott efforts being pushed, many organizations will find it up undesirable to continue donations. Supposedly SPLC is laying off employees, though the union claims it is part of anti-union attack.
You wonder how it got to this.
The 1990s, saw the SPLC was still focused on these groups that were traditionally racist such as skinheads neo-Nazies, etc.. So far so good. That helped somewhat in raising money for the SPLC. These racist groups really generate much in the way of legal recoveries, but more importantly the SPCA no longer accepted any fees or share in legal judgments awarded to clients it represents in court. It really can't get better as long as you have donations coming into your organization to fund litigation in the future.
So then comes the 2000s and into the bullseye comes Moms for Liberty, the Family Research Council, the Alliance Defending Freedom, organizations that oppose Critical Race Theory, parental rights movements, parents that oppose the daughters playing against transgenders, and just about any group opposing big government or aligned with conservatives. Also, around 2011 they start a list labeling these organizations hate groups.
Now these are groups that have money if you sue them and win, but they also have major resources to fight you, so you need to raise money. So how best to raise money? Take your case to donors to fight hate groups, and it worked.
Then, a former employee came forward and said he was part of the con, that the hate accusations are a highly profitable scam meant to bilk donors. Basically there were hate gruops that were labelled as groups that SPLC was suing and indenturing as groups and asking for donations to fight. For example, a barbershop owner that displayed a confederate flag was sued as a hate organization, which also allowed the SPLC to claim a dramatic rise in hate crime that they were fighting.
In 2019, the founder of the SPLC was fired by a board group after a review led by Michelle Obama's former chief of staff. It is rumored that the study found a pattern of data manipulation designed to enhance donations, not to mention sexual misconduct and harassment, and even internal racism. A new management team was put in place. That said, the focus become even more political with the development of super PACs and SPLC was seen as a political advocate.
Then the conservative gruops started suing the SPLC for defamation by listing them as hate groups. The Biden Administration then responded with FBI investigations of these groups, but the FBI came back saying while some of these groups were wacky, they were not hate groups under any legal definition. And the lawsuits were making past the pleading stage so now the SPLC would have to come out of pocket big time.
Enter a guy named Todd McMurtry. He represented the kid named Nick Sandmann wearing a MAGA hat in the Lincoln Memorial confrontation. He had major multimillion dollar settlements against media companies and now joins the fight against the SPCA with his big war chest. Which he needs because the SPLC has (had?) a billion dollar of surplus due to ideological donations, which makes it hard to fight, but also makes it a big target for plaintiff attorneys, and he is leading a big time plaintiff attorney group.
Then came the news that the SPLC had paid off or had "spies" infiltrate hate groups and participate in hate crimes or other actions. From a litigation perspective, this raises the issue of whether there was entrapment by the SPLC or whether they in fact funded hate activity,, which may be offensive to some donors or the legal profession. .
The federal government recently indicted the SPLC on numerous charges mostly related the fraud and other crimes against donors. The case highlights a broader issue in the nonprofit sector: how far organizations can go in pursuing their missions while maintaining transparency and accountability to donors. The use of paid sources or informants is not uncommon in investigative contexts, including journalism and law enforcement. I'm not aware it is illegal for a law firm to have paid informants in a potential defendant (though there is a federal money laundering charge), though I could see a major cilvil lawsuit. However, when such practices are funded by charitable donations, questions arise about disclosure, donor intent, and whether financial reporting accurately reflects how funds are used. The outcome of the case may hinge not only on whether the payments occurred, but on how they were represented, and whether those representations meet the legal standards required under federal fraud and state statutes dealing with non-profits. The federal government allegedly wants donations disgorged which could wreak havoc on the SPLC, especially with the SPLC engrossed with plaintiff attorneys.
CharityWatch and other charitable organization watchdog groups now currently assign the Southern Poverty Law Center an "F" rating (or comparable bad ratings). Now with right wing boycott efforts being pushed, many organizations will find it up undesirable to continue donations. Supposedly SPLC is laying off employees, though the union claims it is part of anti-union attack.
You wonder how it got to this.
