3 ms·
Fidelity Won't Let Fund Holders Donate to Southern Poverty Law Center
- amerine 7mo agohttps://archive.is/IvVBz https://archive.is/IvVBz
- SpicyLemonZest 7mo agoThe Trump regime's campaign to radicalize as many people as possible continues unabated.
- RickJWagner 7mo ago[flagged]
- joemazerino 7mo ago[flagged]
- PopAlongKid 7mo agoDAFs (U.S. tax law) were never meant to benefit charities, they are a way to give donors a tax break today by putting money in the hands of for-profit entities like Fidelity in exchange for a vague promise to maybe someday donate to an actual charity. https://blog.charitywatch.org/the-dark-side-of-donor-advised-funds-dafs/ https://blog.charitywatch.org/the-dark-side-of-donor-advised... I wonder if Fidelity is putting a similar restriction on those age 70 and above who wish to make a Qualified Charitable Distribution (QCD) from their Traditional IRA to Southern Poverty Law Center. This would be even worse, since it is not Fidelity's job to audit the charitable deductions made via QCDs.
- _DeadFred_ 7mo agoI've seen situations where Fidelity won't let you OR your spouse access your retirement funds if your spouse ends up in legal trouble. I really wouldn't keep money you need to be able to access with them. My friend ended up in prison non-finance related and his wife didn't have access to their retirement account (luckily she had other income sources).
- bobsmooth 7mo agoI guess Fidelity doesn't want to help fund hate groups. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-grand-jury-charges-southern-poverty-law-center-wire-fraud-false-statements-and https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-grand-jury-charges-so...
- burnte 7mo agoThey were paying confidential informants for tips they would use in investigations and pass to law enforcement. Not QUITE the same as being a hate group.
- Ancapistani 7mo agoSure, sure - that's why they went to lengths to ensure the money wasn't traceable back to them, right?
- rasz 7mo agoYou mean like undercover cop trying real hard not to show his pay slip to mob members?
- Ancapistani 7mo agoI'll point out that undercover cops are paid the same way as any other officer.
- burnte 7mo agoWe're not talking about undercover cops, we're talking about confidential informants, people who by definition are not police.
- Ancapistani 7mo agoThe comment I was replying to was specifically about undercover cops. That said - in the US, confidential informants are also paid directly by the agency or police department. While they sometimes (often?) paid in cash, the purpose and disbursement of those funds is closely tracked internally and auditable. They're _not_ using shell companies to hide the fact that they're paying people for information. SPLC is. Why? If paying in cash is sufficient for law enforcement, why would it be a problem for the SPLC? It seem clear to me that the intent is to hide the fact that they're doing it at all, not to protect the identities of their informants.
- mil22 7mo agoIt's truly a sad reflection on the state of our government that when I read the DoJ's press release about these charges, all I could think is that the charges are probably not legitimate and are instead politically motivated. This administration has no credibility left whatsoever. Then to see Fidelity take a political stand - well, given my terrible experiences with that company, I can't say I'm surprised.
- orionsbelt 7mo agoI don’t see this as Fidelity taking a political stand, but a conservative risk management decision.
- mieses 7mo agoIt's astonishing that the left is upset about the SPLC being indicted for funneling money to white supremacist groups.
- was8309 7mo agowhat if it becomes clear that it was only to pay informants?
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]