SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
southern poverty law center
Donor-Advised Funds Banning the Southern Poverty Law Center Threaten Democracy
The actions of these DAFs directly undermine democracy by excluding a group the administration has targeted and potentially denying funding to other targeted groups.
May 22, 2026
We know the Trump Department of Justice has threatened individuals they consider political opponents. Echoing authoritarian regimes worldwide, they’re now indicted Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC.
In response, major Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs), including Vanguard, Fidelity, and Schwab, have prevented clients from donating to SPLC, cutting the organization off from funding without even a shred of due process. If the DAFs follow this precedent, it could eliminate a key source of funding for any nonprofits this—or any future—administration chooses to attack.
The funds claim their action is necessary because, according to the administration, it constituted fraud for SPLC to have paid hate group informants. But federal and state law enforcement agencies have known about the infiltrations for years, using information they provided to help secure indictments and convictions. So the charges are spurious.
Fidelity justified its actions by citing a policy of pausing DAF giving if an organization “is being investigated for alleged illegal activities… such as terrorism, money laundering, hate crimes or fraud,” or if “state and federal agencies” are investigating a charitable organization. Schwab’s fund quietly removed SPLC from its list of eligible nonprofits, and a representative read me similar boilerplate, saying the fund was deciding on next steps.
If the Trump administration and its enablers can do this to SPLC, they can do it to far smaller and more vulnerable nonprofits.
The danger is far larger than the SPLC case. The listed criteria would let federal or state authorities cripple any nonprofit they choose, simply by launching an investigation. The organization doesn’t have to be convicted, or even indicted. They just have to be investigated, which makes this a perfect way to target political opponents. The administration has already issued a memorandum promising investigations of groups that promote “anti-fascism,” “anti-Christianity,” or “hostility” toward “traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.” It’s threatened Wikipedia, the Vera Institute for Justice, and the governmental watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, not to mention major universities. All the federal government, or even a state government, would need to do to launch a DAF freeze is to open an official public investigation. And these major DAFs would then block the targeted organization from receiving funding.
The implications aren’t confined to the Trump administration. Under this precedent, Democrats holding power could do the same to disfavored nonprofits. Just launching an investigation would cut off a significant part of a targeted organization’s money flow. The defunding or banning of targeted NGOs is exactly what Vladimir Putin did in Russia, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, and Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. It’s a classic way to eliminate opposition and consolidate power. And the anticipatory compliance of Vanguard, Fidelity, and Schwab is the exact kind of response that empowers would-be dictatorships, whatever their politics.
If a nonprofit is convicted of fraud or money laundering, it’s of course legitimate to remove or suspend their 501(c)(3) nonprofit status. But SPLC has neither been tried nor convicted, so the DAFs are letting a hostile administration’s mere accusation of wrongdoing become an excuse to block funding. The $326 billion of money that DAFs hold is part of the lifeblood of nonprofits. The actions of these DAFs directly undermine democracy by excluding a group the administration has targeted and potentially denying funding to other targeted groups. That’s true whatever you think of SPLC.
If there’s a nonprofit that could weather this, it’s SPLC, with its $786 million endowment. I don’t give to them because I think other groups are more impactful for the money they spend. But if the Trump administration and its enablers can do this to SPLC, they can do it to far smaller and more vulnerable nonprofits. For instance, they could target nonpartisan voter engagement groups, drying up funding (including pledged contributions) at the point when these groups need it the most to engage citizens in democracy. Damaging attacks on nonprofit funding also don’t have to come from the federal Department of Justice. Under Fidelity’s criteria, attacks could come from state governments as well, with potential targets including either conservative or liberal groups depending on which party runs a particular state.
But ordinary citizens have the power to change this. The campaigns that got ABC to reinstate Jimmy Kimmel offer a model. This issue has less visibility, but for the nonprofits it could affect is equally critical. If we have money in a DAF, our calls or emails could well make the difference. Schwab told me that they’d been getting lots of critical responses. But even if we don’t have a DAF, nearly 60% of us have retirement or other investment accounts, with most housed at the major affiliated brokerages. So we can reach out as well, threatening to switch our investments to brokerages that don’t empower authoritarian initiatives, like TIAA-CREF (at least for now Merrill Lynch-Bank of America is still putting through grants as well), and, if we have DAF’s, transfer them to ones that haven’t banned SPLC contributions, like Amalgamated Bank, Impact Assets, or Daffy. A group of socially responsible investment advisers have created a sign-on letter. New York’s historic Riverside Church just divested $12 million from Vanguard. A long-time activist friend created a leavefidelity.com site with cut and paste templates to send to the companies involved.
The goal is to echo what people did in the Kimmel situation when they boycotted the channels, advertisers, and theme park properties of national ABC-Disney and local Sinclair and Nextstar stations. People also protested in front of affiliated ABC stations—something they could do at the headquarters of the relevant brokerage houses. While DAFs are technically separate entities, they share investment management, administration, and the parent brand, which offers them as an incentive for clients. So we’re far from powerless.
The job of the brokerage houses is not to police client giving. Their affiliated DAFs need to allow donations to all legitimate nonprofits, whether or not the Trump administration—or any administration—agrees with what they do.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Craven Attempt to Silence Dissent’: Trump DOJ Slammed for Indictment of Anti-Hate Group
"Another example of the dangerous, overreaching abuse of executive power so endemic in this authoritarian administration."
Apr 22, 2026
The civil rights and progressive advocacy community is rallying to the defense of the Southern Poverty Law Center after President Donald Trump's Justice Department indicted the organization on Tuesday on multiple counts of wire fraud and other charges, which the group has condemned as false and politically motivated.
The Justice Department, led by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche—who previously served as Trump's personal attorney—said Tuesday that a grand jury in Montgomery, Alabama returned an indictment charging SPLC with "11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering." The Justice Department accused SPLC, which specializes in monitoring extremist groups and movements, of "funding" far-right white supremacist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan by paying people to infiltrate them and gather information.
Bryan Fair, SPLC's interim chief executive, said the Trump DOJ's "false allegations" won't "shake our resolve to fight for justice and ensure the promise of the civil rights movement becomes a reality for all." Fair noted that SPLC no longer works with paid informants but emphasized that they "risked their lives to infiltrate and inform on the activities of our nation’s most radical and violent extremist groups."
Allied civil rights organizations spoke out in defense of the SPLC and warned that the Trump administration's legal assault on the group is part of a broader attack on those who oppose the far-right and work to protect democracy.
“What is happening to civil rights organizations right now is the most coordinated assault on our sector since COINTELPRO," Maya Wiley, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. "We are the people who train poll workers, run food banks, fight discrimination, protect the right to protest, and staff domestic violence hotlines. We are the ones who make sure that everyone can live, love, vote, work, study, travel and simply be themselves, free from discrimination. This administration views that as a threat to its power."
"In order to have absolute power, it must dismantle our rights," Wiley added. "And that’s why they’re coming after us."
"We condemn this appalling move from a captured, weak-willed DOJ that is devoid of integrity and has lost sight of its mission under this administration."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen, called the SPLC indictment "another example of the dangerous, overreaching abuse of executive power so endemic in this authoritarian administration."
“This is a craven attempt to silence dissent by attacking a core civil rights organization focused on combating violent extremism," said Gilbert. "We condemn this appalling move from a captured, weak-willed DOJ that is devoid of integrity and has lost sight of its mission under this administration. We stand in solidarity with SPLC."
SPLC has repeatedly criticized Trump, members of his two administrations, people in his orbit, and extremist groups—such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers—that have supported the president's efforts to subvert American democracy, including with violence on January 6, 2021.
"To be clear: Trump’s FBI is going after the Southern Poverty Law Center because they infiltrated and exposed the same dangerous right-wing extremist groups that many Trump allies are associated with," activist Melanie D'Arrigo said in response to the indictment.
Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, said in a statement that the Trump administration's "continued weaponization of the Justice Department to target organizations speaking out against its agenda is anti-American behavior harkening back to the McCarthy era."
“The Trump administration’s attack against the Southern Poverty Law Center is a direct threat to the values that make America great," said Romero. "In this time of unprecedented peril for our democracy, we urge all Americans of good conscience to join us as we stand in support of the Southern Poverty Law Center."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Florida Sued Over DeSantis' 'Ultimate Cowardly Act' Against Direct Democracy
"We believe in democracy, and we believe that when politicians fail to act, the people have the right to step in," said the campaign manager of Florida Decides Healthcare, a plaintiff in the suit.
May 06, 2025
Florida Decides Healthcare, a political committee and nonprofit that is fighting for expanded Medicaid eligibility in the Sunshine State, on Sunday sued the Florida secretary of state and other state officials, challenging a law Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed last week that makes it tougher for citizens to get constitutional amendments on the ballot.
According to the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court, Florida Decides Healthcare (FDH) is working to qualify a ballot measure to appear on the 2026 general election ballot that, if voted through, would expand Medicaid coverage in Florida.
Provisions in H.B. 1205 include decreased time for organizers to submit signed petitions and increased monetary penalties for violations. The law also makes it a third-degree felony for anyone other than a registered petition circulator to collect or physically possess more than 25 signed petition forms beyond ones own and immediate family members.
"Because of H.B. 1205's punitive and onerous restrictions, set to go into effect in the middle of FDH's ongoing petition drive, the organization faces the real and imminent threat of being unable to continue its operations," according to the suit. "H.B. 1205 creates intolerable uncertainty, exposes FDH to ruinous civil and criminal penalties, and could ultimately force FDH to shut down its campaign entirely."
According to a statement from FDH, the lawsuit contends that the bill is a "direct assault" on the citizen-led constitutional amendment process in Florida, "a vital democratic tool that gives everyday Floridians the power to propose ballot initiatives."
H.B. 1205 creates "vague" and "punitive" restrictions around the process that will have a chilling impact on political speech and dissuade civic engagement, according to the group.
The Elias Law Group, a prominent Democratic law firm, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, a racial justice and legal advocacy group, are lending legal support to FDH.
This targeting of the citizens amendment process comes less than one year after two ballot initiatives in Florida narrowly failed. Amendment 4 sought to ensure the right to an abortion up until fetal viability. The measure narrowly failed, falling short of the 60% majority needed to pass, meaning Florida will remain under a six-week abortion ban. Amendment 3 sought to legalize marijuana and also failed. Groups backing the initiatives raised tens of millions of dollars.
According to the Orlando Sentinel, the DeSantis administration used public money to run ads targeting the initiatives, and defended the ad campaigns as educational.
"Floridians have a constitutional right to change policy themselves. State legislators have now effectively silenced their constituents, all in order to maintain their chokehold on policymaking," said Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project, in a statement on Tuesday. The Fairness Project was among the groups that backed Amendment 4 last fall.
"It's the ultimate cowardly act—for politicians to enact minority rule when they know their policies don't align with the will of the majority," Hall added. "Sadly, this is nothing new for DeSantis, who used extraordinarily undemocratic means to block the will of the people during the 2024 election."
Mitch Emerson, campaign manager for Florida Decides Healthcare, similarly called the law "cowardly." Emerson is also a plaintiff in the suit.
"It's not reform—it's repression. We are filing this lawsuit because we refuse to let them silence the people of Florida," said Emerson in a statement on Monday. "We believe in democracy, and we believe that when politicians fail to act, the people have the right to step in. Floridians are ready to vote for Medicaid expansion—and we intend to make sure they get that chance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Here's the 'Fire Elon Musk' Ad the Washington Post Refuses to Run
"Is it only okay to run things in The Post now that won't anger the president or won't have him calling Jeff Bezos asking why this was allowed?"
Feb 17, 2025
Critics of the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post are targeting the newspaper over its "gutless" refusal to run a paid wrap-around advertisement that makes a prominent demand for President Donald Trump to fire mega-billionaire Elon Musk from his cohort of inner-most advisers.
The special ad, at a cost of $115,000, was orchestrated by the pro-democracy watchdog Common Cause, a progressive advocacy group, and scheduled to be delivered to members of Congress and subscribers at the Pentagon and White House on Tuesday. On Friday, however, the newspaper notified the group that it was backing out of the arrangement.
" Elon Musk is attempting to run our government like one of his companies, and it's hurting the American people," reads some of the language of the campaign on which the ad is based. "Even more concerning is that President Donald Trump is allowing it to happen. It's time to say enough and FIRE Elon Musk from any role within our government."
The campaign, like the ad refused by the Post, points people to an online petition where they can back the demand Musk be fired and information to contact their members of Congress.
"Our elected officials are totally abandoning their duty to their constituents while Elon Musk does as he pleases," reads the call to action. "Whether your senators are on the right, on the left, or in the center, they ALL need to hear from everyday Americans like us today."
The Hill, given an exclusive for the story, reports that one of the ironies of the situation is that when the Post gave Common Cause a sample look at how the advertisement would appear, the example was a previously run ad by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), an industry lobby group, highlighting the new president's promise to "end the electric vehicle mandate on Day 1," which included an image of a smiling Trump with his thumbs up.
"They gave us some sample art to show us what it would look like," Kase Solomón, president of Common Cause, explained. "It was a thank-you Donald Trump piece of art."
According to The Hill:
The ad’s design features a large picture of Musk with his head tilted back, laughing, along with a cutout image of the White House and large white text: “Who’s running this country: Donald Trump or Elon Musk?”
Lower down on the page it features smaller font text stating: “Since day one, Elon has created chaos and confusion and put our livelihoods at risk. And he is accountable to no one but himself.”
“The Constitution only allows for one president at a time. Call your senators and tell them it’s time Donald Trump fire Elon Musk,” it says, followed by the URL FireMusk.org.
Here's what the ad was supposed to look like:
Solomón said it was not clear why the newspaper made its decision, but it seemed very much to do with the nature of the ad's content and possibly with the political leanings of the Post's owner, the second-richest man in the world after Musk himself. Both men have significant business interests that could be injured if they run afoul of President Trump.
"Is it because we’re critical of what's happening with Elon Musk?" asked Solomón. "Is it only okay to run things in The Post now that won't anger the president or won't have him calling Jeff Bezos asking why this was allowed?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Michigan GOP Is Campaigning on Hate
Its campaign mailers showcase the logo of a political advocacy group called FAIR and a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, both anti-immigration hate groups with ties to white nationalists.
Sep 20, 2024
Although the Michigan Republican Party experienced a severe cash shortage under ex-chair Kristina Karamo, that appears to have been solved for the time being. Karamo was removed as chair this year due to her poor fundraising ability. With current chair Pete Hoekstra, the state GOP found the money to begin flooding inboxes with campaign mailers.
Some houses in my neighborhood in Hazel Park received six pieces of campaign mail or more per week. Most of these mailers contain the standard accusations, that Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris is “failed, weak, and dangerously liberal.” Some showcase the logo of a political advocacy group called FAIR and a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, both anti-immigration groups with Michigan connections and ties to white nationalists.
FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) is quoted on these mailers alleging “Harris Hints Big Amnesty Bill on the Way.” The mailer summarizes an argument from the FAIR-affiliated think tank the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) that amnesty for undocumented immigrants “would cost Social Security $1.3 trillion, destroying benefits for American seniors.” Part of this cost would come from immigrants who had been paying into the system through payroll taxes suddenly receiving citizenship. The CIS admits that many undocumented immigrants “are currently paying into the system without accruing any benefits in return...” Many publications have criticized the center’s methodologies and conclusions in previous reports, such as Snopes, Factcheck.org, and NBC News. Wired ran an article classifying the group as a “fake think tank.”
Putting out mailers with two hate groups prominently cited is a clear example of dogwhistle politics.
FAIR was founded by a Petoskey ophthalmologist named John Tanton in 1979, who also co-founded CIS in 1985. He had been active in the environmentalist group the Sierra Club, but shifted his focus to restricting immigration. Tanton, who died in 2019, promoted eugenics—the idea that the human race could and should be perfected through selected breeding and sterilization. While some anti-immigrant activists couch their arguments in terms of economics or nation security, Tanton made his arguments explicitly in terms of race. He was against immigration from non-white countries and was quoted in The New York Times to that effect. “One of my prime concerns,” he explained, “is about the decline of folks who look like you and me... for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.”
That emphasis on racial opposition to immigration at FAIR and CIS was not unique to Tanton. Dan Stein, the current head of FAIR, defends the 1924 Immigration Act, a piece of legislation enthusiastically supported by the Ku Klux Klan. Stein argues that the replacement of that law by the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act was done as a way to “retaliate against Anglo-Saxon dominance and hubris…” Stein would prefer an immigration system modeled on the 1924 act, one that explicitly favored not just whites, but Anglo-Saxon ones at that.
The CIS, which is also on the advisory board of the Donald Trump-affiliated Project 2025, has recommended notable bigots to supporters. In its weekly listerv, it has promoted Holocaust deniers, Islamophobes, and white nationalists. Both FAIR and CIS are listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-immigrant “hate groups.” When an offended CIS filed suit against the law center over this designation, the lawsuit was dismissed.
The inclusion of FAIR and CIS on campaign mailers comes at an awkward time for Michigan Republicans, who have been trying to make inroads with Arab, Black, and Hispanic voters. They are trying to balance appeals to those groups with a commitment to their base, who are overwhelmingly white. Putting out mailers with two hate groups prominently cited is a clear example of dogwhistle politics. Most will think nothing of the presence of the two groups, but anyone with ears properly attuned will get the message.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Liberal Justices Grill Attorney in Supreme Court Case on Criminalizing Homelessness
"Where are they supposed to sleep? Are they supposed to kill themselves not sleeping?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor of unhoused people who have been barred from sleeping outside in Grants Pass, Oregon.
Apr 22, 2024
As housing rights advocates and people who have been unhoused themselves rallied outside the U.S. Supreme Court Monday to demand an end to the criminalization of homelessness, the court's three liberal justices demanded to know how the city of Grants Pass, Oregon can penalize residents who take part in an act necessary for human survival—sleeping—just because they are forced to do so outside.
After an attorney representing Grants Pass, Thomas Evangelis, described sleeping in public as a form of "conduct," Justice Elena Kagan disputed the claim and reminded Evangelis that he was presenting a legal argument in favor of policing "a biological necessity."
"Presumably you would not think that it's okay to criminalize breathing in public," said Kagan, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama. "And for a homeless person who has no place to go, sleeping in public is kind of like breathing in public."
Evangelis is representing the city in Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case stemming from a 2018 lawsuit filed by an unhoused woman, Debra Blake, who accused officials of "trying to run homeless people out of town."
"On any given day or night, hundreds of individuals in Grants Pass, Oregon, are forced to live outside due to the lack of emergency shelter and affordable housing in their community," the original lawsuit stated.
The city has passed ordinances banning people from sleeping or camping on publicly owned property, with violators subject to fines of hundreds of dollars.
A lower court ruled that the city's bans were in violation of the Eighth Amendment, which bans excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment, "when there was no other place in the city for [unhoused persons] to go."
The city's only homeless shelter, Gospel Rescue Mission, has 138 beds, and the plaintiffs have said there is frequently no room for many of the hundreds of unhoused people in Grants Pass.
On Monday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared inclined to agree with the plaintiff in the original lawsuit who claimed Grants Pass ultimately wanted unhoused people to leave the city. She pointed to comments city officials have made about their aim "to remove every homeless person and give them no public space."
"Wasn't Grant Pass's first-attempt policy choice to put people, homeless people, on buses so they would leave the city?" she asked Deputy United States Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler. "Police officers would buy them a bus ticket, send them out of the city. But that didn't work because people came back because it had been their home... So then they passed this law, and didn't the City Council president say, 'Our intent is to make it so uncomfortable here that they'll move down the road,' meaning out of town, correct?"
Kneedler acknowledged that the statement was made at a City Council meeting.
"Not only is [sleeping] something that everybody engages in, but it's something that everybody has to engage in to be alive," Kneedler said in response to a question from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. "So if you can't sleep, you can't live, and therefore by prohibiting sleeping, the city is basically saying you cannot live in Grants Pass."
The city argued in its case that prohibiting local officials from regulating and banning homeless encampments in public places would cause more people to sleep outdoors—an argument U.S. Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), speaking at the rally outside the court, said exposed "how absurd our country's approach to the unhoused crisis is."
"Instead of enacting real solutions to the unhoused crisis, Grants Pass has taken this case all the way to the Supreme Court and is calling for the court to overturn a landmark decision from 1962 that says the government cannot punish people based on status. So we're here today to demand the Supreme Court support humanity, adhere to constitutional precedent, and protect the rights of our unhoused neighbors," said Bush, who has spoken about previously being unhoused herself and sponsored related legislation.
"A person should never be punished for not being able to afford rent or a home," Bush added. "A person should never be punished for sleeping outside or in a car when they have no other place to go. A person should never be punished for simply existing. We need universal housing, universal housing vouchers, and a permanent federal rental assistance program—these are all tangible steps that would actually solve this crisis."
The case arrived at the high court four months after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development released annual data showing a 12% increase in homelessness last year from 2022, largely due to a sharp rise in the number of people who were without housing in 2023 for the first time in their lives. Experts often argue the federal figures are an undercount.
On Monday, the Eviction Lab at Princeton University released new data showing that in 25 of the 32 cities it analyzed, an increase in eviction filings was seen between 2022-23.
"The country lacks millions of units of affordable rental housing, and in those units that are available, a record number of tenants are paying well beyond their means," reported the Eviction Lab. "High interest rates prevent younger, middle-class renters from buying homes, which in turn increases demand in the rental sector."
Considering the dynamics contributing to a growing unhoused population, Sotomayor asked of people facing homelessness in Grants Pass: "Where are they supposed to sleep? Are they supposed to kill themselves not sleeping?"
The conservatives on the Supreme Court, who make up the majority, signaled a willingness to rule in favor of the city, with Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledging that the case is centered on "a policy problem because the solution, of course, is to build shelter to provide shelter for those who are otherwise harmless," but noting that "municipalities have competing priorities."
The answer to the questions being asked at the Supreme Court Monday "is not complicated," said Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.). "Unhoused people need housing. Housing is the answer. Housing NOT Handcuffs."
Ramirez repeated a phrase that was seen on many signs held by rally attendees, who included the national grassroots economic justice group VOCAL and organizers with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the National Homelessness Law Center (NHLC).
"What the Supreme Court decides in this case will say a lot about what kind of country we are and what country we want to be," said Efrén Olivares, director of strategic litigation and advocacy at the SPLC. "We demand a future without policies like the one before the court and a government that instead works to ensure that the right to affordable housing is guaranteed for all."
A ruling in the case is expected in June.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jesus Didn’t Teach Hate, But the Group Behind the ‘He Gets Us’ Super Bowl Ads Funds It
Over the last five years the Servant Foundation has become the main identifiable source of funding for Alliance Defending Freedom, described as an anti-LGBTIQ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Feb 13, 2024
A U.S. nonprofit that aired two ads during Sunday’s Super Bowl attempting to rebrand Jesus for Gen Z is also the main funder of a designated hate group opposing abortion and LGBTIQ rights, openDemocracy can reveal.
The Servant Foundation has plunged millions of dollars into its “He Gets Us” ads, which paint Jesus as an “influencer” who was “cancelled” for standing up for his beliefs. The controversial adverts were shown at the Super Bowl for the second year running and have been plastered across billboards in the United States over the last year.
But analysis of financial accounts by openDemocracy shows over the last five years the Servant Foundation has also grown to become the main identifiable source of funding for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), described as an anti-LGBTIQ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)—an allegation it denies.
In total Servant gave the group $65.9 million from 2018 to 2021—an average of more than $16 million a year. As a result, ADF’s grant income rose from $55 million in 2017 to $96.8 million in 2021.
Servant’s boom coincides with its split from the National Christian Foundation (NCF), of which it was an affiliate from its launch in 2000 through to 2017. During this time, it would hand out an average $1.3 million a year and receive around $4 million. But after the split with NCF, Servant pocketed more than $1 billion in contributions—a large chunk of which actually came from the NCF.
NCF and Servant Foundation are among 12 DAF operators that from 2017 to 2020 gave $272 million to 36 American groups that work to restrict the rights of women and LGBTIQ people in the U.S. and abroad.
The NCF is considered the biggest U.S. charity for Christian causes and has been accused of channeling millions of dollars to hate groups. Almost immediately after the split with Servant, it gave the group $307 million, followed by another $11 million in 2019. It also received more than $222 million from Servant between 2018 and 2021, showing a mutual flow of money that, according to experts, “adds a layer of secrecy” to donations they make on behalf of clients.
This type of money transfer from one donor-advised fund (DAF) operator to another grew by 409% between 2015 and 2019, and hit $1 billion only in 2019, according to an analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies published in 2021. That study only focused on the biggest commercial DAF operatorsthose nonprofit branches of financial companies, thus excluding DAF operators like Servant and NCF.
“Wealthy people give to intermediaries, such as private foundations and DAF operators, which in 2021 received almost a third of all donations,” Chuck Collins, director for the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies, told openDemocracy. “When these donor-controlled intermediaries pass money back and forth, they can add layers of secrecy so the public doesn’t know where the funds are ending up.”
Stephanie Peng, research manager with the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), which supports marginalized communities, told openDemocracy: “Anonymity is really dangerous, because you don’t know who is really behind all that money; who is controlling massive, massive amounts of money; and necessarily where that funding is going.”
The Servant Foundation was set up in Kansas by evangelical lawyer Bill High. Its partnership with the NCF included the NCF performing “accounting and other back-room tasks” for Servant. High ended the relationship in 2017, reportedly to offer lower fees to clients, and also changed Servant’s public-facing name to The Signatry.
Servant made headlines with its Super Bowl ads, which were part of the $300 million He Gets Us campaign hoping to fuel conservative evangelical goals.
NCF and Servant Foundation are among 12 DAF operators that from 2017 to 2020 gave $272 million to 36 American groups that work to restrict the rights of women and LGBTIQ people in the U.S. and abroad, an openDemocracy investigation revealed earlier this year. Servant donated a fifth of that sum and the NCF almost a half.
Hobby Lobby Money
By the time Servant split from the NCF, High had forged a crucial relationship with David Green, until then a substantial client of NCF whose retail giant Hobby Lobby plays a prominent role in battles against sexual and reproductive rights.
In 2014, Hobby Lobby won a big case when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations could deny contraception coverage under their workers’ health insurance policies, if doing so would violate their “sincerely held religious beliefs.” The NCF had given millions of dollars to the law groups litigating this case—ADF and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a law firm that has represented the Greens since 2012.
High, who retired as Servant CEO in January, and Green have co-authored several books about Christian charitable giving. Green also appeared in a 2020 promotional video for Servant.
Among other beneficiaries of money channeled through Servant are at least seven U.S. organizations well-known for their attacks against equal rights: ADF, the Fellowship Foundation, Focus on the Family, American Center for Law and Justice, Family Research Council, Heartbeat International, and the Heritage Foundation.
Analysis of donation flows suggests cash from Green that once moved through the NCF could now be getting channeled through Servant. Since 2018, Servant has given big money to two groups focused on international evangelism and distribution of Christian literature that are also listed on the Hobby Lobby donation webpage. They rank second and third in money received from Servant from 2018 to 2021—Every Home for Christ ($181 million) and OneHope ($107 million). Meanwhile, the NCF, which had given $47 million to Every Home for Christ and $25 million to OneHope in 2017, has drastically reduced its contributions to these organizations since then. Green was also reportedly a major donor for the He Gets Us campaign. Both Hobby Lobby and Green did not respond to questions about whether they had stopped donating cash via the NCF and instead donated it via Servant.
The Museum of the Bible, founded by the Green family in 2017 at a cost of $500 million—and marred by scandals for buying looted and smuggled archaeological artifacts and exhibiting “modern forgeries” of Dead Sea Scroll fragments—is another big grantee of the Servant Foundation. It was given more than $3.2 million between 2018 and 2021 and before that had received hundreds of millions from the NCF since 2013.
Funding Hate and Misinformation
Among other beneficiaries of money channeled through Servant are at least seven U.S. organizations well-known for their attacks against equal rights: ADF, the Fellowship Foundation, Focus on the Family, American Center for Law and Justice, Family Research Council, Heartbeat International, and the Heritage Foundation.
ADF won a Supreme Court case this year that allows businesses to discriminate against gay couples on free speech grounds, and was one of the groups that masterminded the strategy to overturn the constitutionally protected right to abortion in the U.S. It has defended the sterilization of trans people in Europe and fought the decriminalization of gay sex in Belize. It also launched efforts to ban transgender students’ access to bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity.
Also a SPLC-designated hate group, Family Research Council makes false claims about LGBTIQ people, and has been involved in funding and promoting harmful conversion therapies against LGBTIQ people, as well as opposing U.S. local bans to these activities.
The exchange of money between DAF operators as Servant and NCF is a model extending internationally.
In 2021, openDemocracy revealed how Focus on the Family, another organization funded by Servant, had platforms for the provision of conversion therapies in the U.S. and Costa Rica.
openDemocracy requested interviews with all the organizations and individuals named in this investigation. Only the NCF answered through a short written statement signed by its communications vice president, Steve Chapman.
“The NCF does not develop or implement strategies about which charities or causes to support [and] does not rely on third-party designations or labels in our grantmaking process,” Chapman said. “All grants are initiated by the recommendations of our givers.”
In the statement, the DAF operator claimed to serve “over 25,000 givers that use Giving Funds [donor-advised funds] to individually support their favorite causes and charities,” and to have given more than $14 billion since 1982 to more than 70,000 charities that “are providing clean water to the thirsty, rescuing victims of human trafficking, translating the Bible into new languages, and much more.”
A Global Model
The exchange of money between DAF operators as Servant and NCF is a model extending internationally. The NCF, for example, partnered with TrustBridge Global, a charitable giving vehicle that declares itself as the first truly global DAF operator. Registered in 2016 in Florida and Switzerland, its CEO is a former NCF employee. TrustBridge has set up affiliate foundations around the world and claims to have 70,000 nonprofits vetted to receive DAFs. The list includes the ADF branch in the U.K. TrustBridge has also received millions of dollars from Servant.
Servant presents itself as a “global community” that has given $4 billion in “transformational grants for nonprofits around the world,” and supports projects in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The fund also claims to have given $2 million in 150 grants for emergency relief in Ukraine, and over $1 million “for supporting missionaries around the globe, fueling the spread of the gospel in at least 43 countries,” especially in Africa.
Its website says it gave out over $470 million in grants in 2021, while receiving $899 million in contributions. As a DAF operator, it is able to accept other assets beyond cash, such as property, cryptocurrency, stocks, and mutual funds, as well as life insurance payouts.
“We want donors to be accountable to who they’re giving money to.”
When clients “give” assets other than money to these funds, they can write off the total amount the gifts are worth. This way, donors can bypass capital gains taxes from these gifts, which they would have to pay if they converted them into cash holdings.
Some DAF operators even have estate-planning options to bypass estate taxes and continue charitable giving after a donor dies.
For the NCRP, this is troubling.
“We want donors to be accountable to who they’re giving money to. So if donors are putting all of this money into a DAF, but that money sits there for years and years, and there are no beneficiaries, if the donor made a commitment and that commitment doesn’t make its way down to the recipient organisation, then that’s a problem,” NCRP’s Stephanie Peng said.
Legislative efforts to establish “reasonable timeframes” for paying out assets have so far failed.
High, Servant’s founder, has argued against any effort to make DAFs more accountable. “A hallmark of American charity has always been a right to privacy. We should not take away that privacy right. On the contrary, donor-advised funds have done much to democratize giving, as witnessed by their rapid rise,” he wrote in a Forbes article.
His foundation continues to court new donors. Its website even has a calculator for prospective customers to see how much in taxes they could save by donating.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups Sue Over Anti-Immigrant Florida Law 'Designed to Inflict Cruelty'
One critic called S.B. 1718 "an attempt to scapegoat and terrorize vulnerable families and workers already burdened by the difficulty of the federal immigration process and to pick a fight with the federal government."
Jul 17, 2023
Legal groups representing the Farmworker Association of Florida and impacted individuals on Monday filed a federal lawsuit in Miami challenging Senate Bill 1781, one of several far-right state laws pushed through this year by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis as he geared up for the GOP's 2024 presidential primary.
Signed by DeSantis in May, the measure "is unconstitutional, xenophobic, and will increase the unlawful racial profiling of Florida's Black and Brown communities," said Paul R. Chavez, senior supervising attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center's Immigrant Justice Project—which filed the suit with the state and national ACLU as well as the American Immigration Council and Americans for Immigrant Justice.
"Admittedly designed to inflict cruelty, S.B. 1718 is unconstitutional and undermines our democracy," Chavez continued. "This lawsuit will vindicate all of our constitutional rights, and we remain committed to ensuring that immigrants are treated fairly, equally, and with dignity. Such an ugly attack on our immigrant community will not stand."
The new Florida law aims to crack down on the employment of undocumented immigrants and requires hospitals that accept Medicaid to ask on forms whether a patient is in the United States lawfully. It also expands the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's mission to include immigration matters, deems out-of-state driver's licenses issued to "unauthorized immigrants" invalid, and makes it a felony to transport into the state anyone who illegally entered the country.
As the American Immigration Council outlined in a series of tweets, this case focuses on the transportation portion of the law—though the group also emphasized that "Section 10 is just one part of S.B. 1718 that harms immigrant families."
"I'm suing because this law harms our family and many others. We aren't doing anything to hurt anyone. On the contrary, we're here working, paying taxes, and trying to provide a safe life for our families," said one of the individual plaintiffs, identified as MM. "Now we're scared to even travel together as a family. I would never want my son to face a felony for traveling with his mother and his sister. It makes no sense. We're family—how can this be?"
Nezahualcoyotl Xiuhtecutli, general coordinator at the 12,000-member Farmworker Association of Florida, stressed that "not only is this law detrimental to our members' abilities to put food on their own tables, it is detrimental to our members' ability to put food on everyone's tables."
"Florida's S.B. 1718 is a self-inflicted wound—the product of short-sighted lawmakers unable to see beyond the most immediate political opportunity," Xiuhtecutli added. "Though the impact of similar anti-immigrant laws in Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia clearly foreshadowed its legal and economic fallout, S.B. 1718 was passed with little regard for the hardships those states have experienced."
Businesses and hospitals are currently sorting out how to comply with the law. Even before taking effect on July 1, S.B. 1718 was causing a worker exodus from the state, as Common Dreams reported last month. On the healthcare front, some attorneys and advocates are urging all patients to refuse to answer any questions about citizenship on paperwork.
"As news of the predictable damage inflicted on Florida by S.B. 1718 comes in, we are filing this lawsuit to stop its unconstitutional criminalization of the immigrant community in a state where one-fifth of the population was born abroad," Amien Kacou, staff attorney for the ACLU of Florida, said Monday.
"This legislation is not the solution to any problem," Kacou asserted. "It is an attempt to scapegoat and terrorize vulnerable families and workers already burdened by the difficulty of the federal immigration process and to pick a fight with the federal government in order to serve the ambitions of a few politicians."
Evelyn Wiese, litigation attorney with Americans for Immigrant Justice, declared that "there's no denying the viciousness and inhumanity of this xenophobic new law. But Gov. DeSantis and his anti-immigrant allies in the Florida Legislature should make no mistake: When they attempt to flout the Constitution, we will fight back."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Defend Our Liberty From Moms For Liberty
The far-right group embraces book banning, but held its national convention in Philadelphia, in an unmistakable message about the central role the group sees for itself in American culture and politics.
Jul 04, 2023
In May of 1933 in Berlin, Nazis gathered in the streets, built a gigantic bonfire, and burned thousands of books.
The books had been seized from the city’s Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. The nonprofit institute was the first in the world to focus on the science of gender and sexuality. It was supportive of LGBTQ studies and provided gender-affirming health care.
Before the raid, the organization had a number of transgender employees and hosted an extensive library of materials on LGBTQ health. Tragically, at least one transgender woman is believed to have died in the violent attack that preceded the book burning.
As Nazi atrocities go, this was an early and foreboding event.
We’re witnessing the wholesale forgetting of the authoritarian forces behind book-banning and censorship. And the worst thing we could do would be to look away.
The attack on scholarship and on a vulnerable community heralded an eventual descent into unimaginable violence. Book burning and banning, while not invented by the Nazis, became closely associated with them—and with authoritarian repression more generally.
It’s stunning now, after so many years and lessons learned, to watch the meteoric rise of the right-wing, pro-censorship group Moms for Liberty.
The group embraces book-banning as a centerpiece of its activism. Its favored targets are materials relating to Black, brown, and LGBTQ communities. For its national convention the weekend before the Fourth of July, it chose to bring its supporters to Philadelphia, a city with a rich civil rights history and ties to our nation’s independence.
That sends an unmistakable message about the central role the group sees for itself in American culture and politics. So does the attendance of the half-dozen presidential candidates, including Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis.
This is especially disorienting for a younger generation that grew up with incremental but seemingly irreversible progress toward freedom and inclusivity.
We saw the rise of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at work and school and the legalization of same-sex marriage. We saw the election of our first Black president. We took it for granted that we would always have the right to reproductive freedom. Until we didn’t.
We’re witnessing the wholesale forgetting of the authoritarian forces behind book-banning and censorship. And the worst thing we could do would be to look away.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is not looking away—it named Moms for Liberty as an extremist group in its annual Year in Hate and Extremism report.
Some media outlets have been vigilant about debunking Moms for Liberty’s claims to be a low-budget, grassroots group. Ditto any claims that it is peaceful: There are numerous reports that local Moms for Liberty operatives have turned threatening and aggressive.
The organization was even forced to apologize after a local chapter approvingly quoted Hitler in its newsletter.
But this criticism hasn’t really dented Moms for Liberty’s ability to attract money or the attention of presidential candidates. It will take more than that to protect the freedom to learn.
We need a multiracial, multigenerational, cross-cultural response that clearly affirms American values.
We need to assert the right of parents to decide if their kids are mature enough to read a book, but not to make that decision for everybody else’s kids.
We need to stand up for accurate and honest school curricula in which our nation’s full history is taught and the stories of all Americans are included. That fosters respect, understanding, and empathy—and prepares kids for meaningful civic engagement.
The last big right-wing group to promote book-banning and censorship—the Moral Majority—collapsed under the weight of its own financial and sexual scandals, but not before it did serious harm to marginalized communities in this country. We can’t wait around for this movement to burn itself out as well.
Fighting censorship is as American as you can get, and that’s what this year’s celebration of our country’s birthday should be about.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Immigrants Win 'Unprecedented' Settlement Over Violent ICE Raid in Tennessee
"Today's ruling is a testament to the incredible power and resiliency of immigrant workers and their communities," said one advocate.
Feb 28, 2023
Immigrant rights groups celebrated a historic victory late Monday as a federal judge handed down what is believed to be the first-ever class action settlement over a workplace immigration raid in the United States, awarding $1.17 million to nearly 100 people who were targeted by the Trump administration in 2018.
Most of the plaintiffs will receive more than $5,700 each, while a total of $475,000 will be split between six people who the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee found were eligible to be compensated for "negligent or wrongful acts by agents of the federal government," The New York Times reported Monday.
The plaintiffs, represented by legal advocacy groups including the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), were rounded up by the Department of Homeland Security in April 2018 after an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) found that their employer at a meat processing plant in Bean Station, Tennessee was evading taxes by paying them in cash.
"They used the pretext of a tax investigation of the plant's owner to plan and carry out a full-blown operation targeting the Latino workers," Michelle Lapointe, deputy legal director for the NILC, told the Times on Monday.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents descended on the plant and violently arrested dozens of Latino workers, separating them from their white coworkers and physically assaulting some of them. The warrant the agents had to enter the premises did not authorize them to arrest anyone. Only one Latino employee avoided the raid—by hiding in a meat freezer.
A majority of the workers were placed in deportation court proceedings and at least 20 were deported shortly after the raid.
More than 150 children were directly affected by the raid, as their parents were detained. The nearby city of Morristown rallied around the immigrant community, providing legal services, donations, help with locating detained people, and child care.
The NILC called the legal victory handed down on Monday "a testament to the power of community organizing to protect workers' rights."
"Today's ruling is a testament to the incredible power and resiliency of immigrant workers and their communities," said Lisa Sherman Luna, executive director at the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition. "Violent enforcement tactics like workplace raids are designed to keep immigrant families living in fear, but these plaintiffs and class members refused to stand by when they knew their rights had been violated. This settlement sends a clear message: No matter who we are or where we are from, we all deserve the freedom to work and live safely in our communities."
Meredith Stewart, senior supervising attorney at the SPLC's Immigrant Justice Project, called the ruling "unprecedented" and said the settlement "demonstrates that we, as a nation, will not tolerate racial profiling."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy