Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Notes on a non-profit indicted for bank fraud

bitsaboutmoney.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 31 posts

Re: Notes on a non-profit indicted for bank fraud

#11

Post by tptacek »

barry-cotter wrote: post #4
Tyrubias wrote: post #3

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 figh…

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 th…

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.

Re: Notes on a non-profit indicted for bank fraud

#12

Post by caseysoftware »

tptacek wrote: post #11
barry-cotter wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

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.

> "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-organiz...

Unless Patrick is wrong. The end of his post asks for comment from the relevant organizations so they could easily address this one.

Re: Notes on a non-profit indicted for bank fraud

#13

Post by tptacek »

caseysoftware wrote: post #12
tptacek wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "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 adve…

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).

Re: Notes on a non-profit indicted for bank fraud

#14

Post by caseysoftware »

tptacek wrote: post #13
caseysoftware wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 adve…

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 t…

Upthread summarizes Patrick accurately but maybe too succinctly, so to lay it out specifically:

In the post, Patrick demonstrates that the SPLC cofounded and led Change the Terms (CTT) then goes on to demonstrate CTT targeted a specific political candidate's fundraising. The first is fine, the second is illegal.

Check out the section titled "July 2021: The CTT coalition attempts non-partisan interdiction of Trump PAC fundraising" for specific quotes and even a picture of a mobile billboard they funded.

That is neither "ideologies" nor "party definitions"

Re: Notes on a non-profit indicted for bank fraud

#15

Post by tptacek »

caseysoftware wrote: post #14
tptacek wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Upthread summarizes Patrick accurately but maybe too succinctly, so to lay it out specifically: In the post, Patrick demonstrates that the SPLC cofounded and led Change the Terms (CTT) then goes on to demonstrate CTT targeted a specific political candidate's fundraising. The first is fine, the second is illegal. Check out the section titled "July 2021: The CTT coalition attempts non-partisan interdiction of Trump PAC…

I've read Patrick's post very carefully and am not disputing it, just the comment upthread, and then only as a nudge.

Re: Notes on a non-profit indicted for bank fraud

#16

Post by coldtea »

rexpop wrote: post #7
gadders wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.

Governments should be more constrained than private individuals' enterprise. "Political" motives are inappropriate for the federal government.

At least goverments are elected. Some private enterprise like SPLC could fuck people over and brand them with no accountability.

Re: Notes on a non-profit indicted for bank fraud

#17

Post by coldtea »

tptacek wrote: post #11
barry-cotter wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

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.

>Private actors working hard to censor political adversaries is not necessarily illegal, for what it's worth.

It should be, for what it's worth.

Re: Notes on a non-profit indicted for bank fraud

#18

Post by tptacek »

coldtea wrote: post #17
tptacek wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Private actors working hard to censor political adversaries is not necessarily illegal, for what it's worth. It should be, for what it's worth.

Pesky First Amendment. Freedom of association is a hell of a drug.

Re: Notes on a non-profit indicted for bank fraud

#19

Post by coldtea »

tptacek wrote: post #18
coldtea wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Private actors working hard to censor political adversaries is not necessarily illegal, for what it's worth. It should be, for what it's worth.

Pesky First Amendment. Freedom of association is a hell of a drug.

Yeah, because, the "right to free speech" fits so well with "working hard to censor political adversaries".

Re: Notes on a non-profit indicted for bank fraud

#20

Post by tptacek »

coldtea wrote: post #19
tptacek wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pesky First Amendment. Freedom of association is a hell of a drug.

Yeah, because, the "right to free speech" fits so well with "working hard to censor political adversaries".

If that was a response to my comment I think you need to read it slightly more carefully.
Post reply on HN