11 ms·

Notes on a non-profit indicted for bank fraud

53 points by Redoubts 5mo ago

barry-cotter 5mo ago
What are the likely long-term consequences of this? Destruction of the SPLC and imprisonment of several officers for wire fraud? Slap on the wrist? End of the widespread use of their censorship product? What would the maximally charitable but in contact with reality [Republican|Democrat] expect or want out of this?
- dmitrygr 5mo ago
  At least their destruction, and prison for everybody who knowingly violated FEC rules
Tyrubias 5mo ago
I generally enjoy Patrick McKenzie’s writing. After quickly skimming this post, I don’t see anything objectionable from a journalistic standpoint. However, I firmly believe the federal indictment of the SPLC is motivated purely by political motives. Out of all the possible financial crimes the federal government can investigate and prosecute, they target a well-known progressive organization that’s spent decades fighting for marginalized communities against white nationalists? This is a miscarriage of justice wrapped in a thin veneer of respectability.
- barry-cotter 5mo ago
  This is completely irrelevant to the article. The SPLC committed wire fraud to subsidise the supply of and activities of the kinds of people they told their supporters they were against. Separately, they worked hard over a period of years to censor their political opponents in a partisan fashion. Those are illegal acts. If you want to defend their actions as such by all means do so. But if you’re just pointing out that the motivating factor behind this particular prosecution might not have been entirely apolitical so what? No one expects the US court system or US attorneys general to act apolitically. The Obama administration extensively used the IRS to target Republicans as such. If you don’t want to be prosecuted for illegal conduct, you should not do illegal things. Alternatively, you could arrange to never lose elections so that your friends are always in power.
  - tptacek 5mo ago
    Private actors working hard to censor political adversaries is not necessarily illegal, for what it's worth. You could say it's problematic for other reasons, and if you mesh in with campaign financing you start to face (long shot) bank-shot legal arguments, but generally partisanship is a time-honored American tradition.
    - caseysoftware 5mo ago
      > "Private actors working hard to censor political adversaries is not necessarily illegal, for what it's worth." "Private actors" is doing quite a bit of work here. For individuals working in their personal capacity, you're mostly correct. The rules change for certain jobs. BUT that's not the situation here. In this case, we have the SPLC - a registered 501(c)(3) - that appears to have worked to censor political adversaries. And the law specifically bars that, making it illegal. > Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Ref: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... Unless Patrick is wrong. The end of his post asks for comment from the relevant organizations so they could easily address this one.
      - tptacek 5mo ago
        You're trying to axiomatically derive election law here. Every word in the statute matters. It is very probably perfectly lawful for SPLC to work to censor ideologies, even up to the point where those ideologies are coterminous with party definitions. The whole edifice of Citizens United is based on a sharp divide between advocacy and campaign finance; the argument you're putting forward is disfavored. (That's not to say SPLC couldn't have fucked up and crossed the line, just that the general description given upthread of what they were doing did not in fact describe a violation of law).
- gadders 5mo ago
  >>However, I firmly believe the federal indictment of the SPLC is motivated purely by political motives. You may be right, but you have to remember that the SPLC was motivated purely by political motives. FAFO.
  - rexpop 5mo ago
    Governments should be more constrained than private individuals' enterprise. "Political" motives are inappropriate for the federal government.
    - gadders 5mo ago
      [flagged]
    - coldtea 5mo ago
      At least goverments are elected. Some private enterprise like SPLC could fuck people over and brand them with no accountability.
      - tptacek 5mo ago
        It's the opposite: elected or not, governments are strictly limited in their ability to do anything like what SPLC did, because they are bound by the Constitution. Private entities are not; they're free to associate, advocate, and advocate for associations or disassociations, generally however they'd like.
        Redoubts 5mo ago
        I guess this case is especially interesting and novel because of how the government has deputized banks as ersatz law enforcement, and banks have delegated decision making to SPLC as ersatz compliance officers. I’m not sure what the law could and should be in this case, but I suspect it’s woefully underspeced to the chagrin of most parties. Hence, bank/wire fraud.
        5mo ago
sierra1011 5mo ago
Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47973309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47973309
- Redoubts 5mo ago
  I’m really surprised I didn’t get auto-duped. Usually submission of the same url gets forwarded to the old post if it’s recent enough…
anitil 5mo ago
There's a few interesting threads in the article that I found interesting. One is about the aggregation of power using social pressure. I've heard whispers of similar things, but it was interesting to see the specifics of how it was built. The other is the use of Donor Advised Funds (which I hadn't heard about before) to have some anonymity over the direction of donations.

53 points by Redoubts 5mo ago

What are the likely long-term consequences of this? Destruction of the SPLC and imprisonment of several officers for wire fraud? Slap on the wrist? End of the widespread use of their censorship product? What would the maximally charitable but in contact with reality [Republican|Democrat] expect or want out of this?

dmitrygr 5mo ago
At least their destruction, and prison for everybody who knowingly violated FEC rules

Tyrubias 5mo ago

I generally enjoy Patrick McKenzie’s writing. After quickly skimming this post, I don’t see anything objectionable from a journalistic standpoint. However, I firmly believe the federal indictment of the SPLC is motivated purely by political motives. Out of all the possible financial crimes the federal government can investigate and prosecute, they target a well-known progressive organization that’s spent decades fighting for marginalized communities against white nationalists? This is a miscarriage of justice wrapped in a thin veneer of respectability.

barry-cotter 5mo ago
This is completely irrelevant to the article. The SPLC committed wire fraud to subsidise the supply of and activities of the kinds of people they told their supporters they were against. Separately, they worked hard over a period of years to censor their political opponents in a partisan fashion. Those are illegal acts. If you want to defend their actions as such by all means do so. But if you’re just pointing out that the motivating factor behind this particular prosecution might not have been entirely apolitical so what? No one expects the US court system or US attorneys general to act apolitically. The Obama administration extensively used the IRS to target Republicans as such. If you don’t want to be prosecuted for illegal conduct, you should not do illegal things. Alternatively, you could arrange to never lose elections so that your friends are always in power.
- tptacek 5mo ago
  Private actors working hard to censor political adversaries is not necessarily illegal, for what it's worth. You could say it's problematic for other reasons, and if you mesh in with campaign financing you start to face (long shot) bank-shot legal arguments, but generally partisanship is a time-honored American tradition.
  - caseysoftware 5mo ago
    > "Private actors working hard to censor political adversaries is not necessarily illegal, for what it's worth." "Private actors" is doing quite a bit of work here. For individuals working in their personal capacity, you're mostly correct. The rules change for certain jobs. BUT that's not the situation here. In this case, we have the SPLC - a registered 501(c)(3) - that appears to have worked to censor political adversaries. And the law specifically bars that, making it illegal. > Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Ref: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... Unless Patrick is wrong. The end of his post asks for comment from the relevant organizations so they could easily address this one.
    - tptacek 5mo ago
      You're trying to axiomatically derive election law here. Every word in the statute matters. It is very probably perfectly lawful for SPLC to work to censor ideologies, even up to the point where those ideologies are coterminous with party definitions. The whole edifice of Citizens United is based on a sharp divide between advocacy and campaign finance; the argument you're putting forward is disfavored. (That's not to say SPLC couldn't have fucked up and crossed the line, just that the general description given upthread of what they were doing did not in fact describe a violation of law).
gadders 5mo ago
>>However, I firmly believe the federal indictment of the SPLC is motivated purely by political motives. You may be right, but you have to remember that the SPLC was motivated purely by political motives. FAFO.
- rexpop 5mo ago
  Governments should be more constrained than private individuals' enterprise. "Political" motives are inappropriate for the federal government.
  - gadders 5mo ago
    [flagged]
  - coldtea 5mo ago
    At least goverments are elected. Some private enterprise like SPLC could fuck people over and brand them with no accountability.
    - tptacek 5mo ago
      It's the opposite: elected or not, governments are strictly limited in their ability to do anything like what SPLC did, because they are bound by the Constitution. Private entities are not; they're free to associate, advocate, and advocate for associations or disassociations, generally however they'd like.
      - Redoubts 5mo ago
        I guess this case is especially interesting and novel because of how the government has deputized banks as ersatz law enforcement, and banks have delegated decision making to SPLC as ersatz compliance officers. I’m not sure what the law could and should be in this case, but I suspect it’s woefully underspeced to the chagrin of most parties. Hence, bank/wire fraud.
        5mo ago

sierra1011 5mo ago

Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47973309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47973309

Redoubts 5mo ago
I’m really surprised I didn’t get auto-duped. Usually submission of the same url gets forwarded to the old post if it’s recent enough…

anitil 5mo ago

There's a few interesting threads in the article that I found interesting. One is about the aggregation of power using social pressure. I've heard whispers of similar things, but it was interesting to see the specifics of how it was built. The other is the use of Donor Advised Funds (which I hadn't heard about before) to have some anonymity over the direction of donations.