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

21–30 of 31 posts

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

#21

Post by barry-cotter »

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.

Sorry, what I should’ve said was that it was illegal for them to try and do it since they’re supposed to be non-partisan as a condition of their tax status. Same way as the Brookings Institution maintains the tissue thing pretence that it’s not a Democratic organisation. It is some other kind of thing that just happens to always do what the Democrats want to do. There’s nothing illegal about trying to send her and ruin the lives of your political opponents as long as you stay with the law but it is illegal for SPLC to be part of a partisan political campaign.

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

#22

Post by caseysoftware »

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.

For 501(c)(3)s, it is. In exchange for tax-exempt status, a group loses certain options.

But the DOJ wouldn't touch those charges though as they're civil (IRS under Treasury) and the criminal charges could be fatal to the org by themselves.

Though, regardless of the criminal outcome, if the facts in the indictment are proven, I'd wager the IRS' case is proven implicitly which could also be fatal.

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

#23

Post by tptacek »

barry-cotter wrote: post #21
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.

Sorry, what I should’ve said was that it was illegal for them to try and do it since they’re supposed to be non-partisan as a condition of their tax status. Same way as the Brookings Institution maintains the tissue thing pretence that it’s not a Democratic organisation. It is some other kind of thing that just happens to always do what the Democrats want to do. There’s nothing illegal about trying to send her and ru…

Again, I'm not disputing anything in Patrick's post, and I totally buy SPLC could have stepped over the line in a number of ways, but being a 501c(3) just means you can't directly contribute to campaigns. You can do as much partisan advocacy as you want. There is absolutely no requirement that a 501c(3) be non-partisan; they just can't participate in campaigns.

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

#24

Post by tptacek »

caseysoftware wrote: post #22
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.

For 501(c)(3)s, it is. In exchange for tax-exempt status, a group loses certain options. But the DOJ wouldn't touch those charges though as they're civil (IRS under Treasury) and the criminal charges could be fatal to the org by themselves. Though, regardless of the criminal outcome, if the facts in the indictment are proven, I'd wager the IRS' case is proven implicitly which could also be fatal.

No it isn't. A 501c3 can't participate directly in a campaign. That's it, that's the whole rule. Plenty of 501c3's are nakedly and openly partisan. Center For American Progress is a c3. Heritage is a c3. AEI is a c3. Claremont is a c3.

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

#25

Post by caseysoftware »

tptacek wrote: post #24
caseysoftware wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For 501(c)(3)s, it is. In exchange for tax-exempt status, a group loses certain options. But the DOJ wouldn't touch those charges though as they're civil (IRS under Treasury) and the criminal charges could be fatal to the org by themselves. Though, regardless of the criminal outcome, if the facts in the indictment are proven, I'd wager the IRS' case is proven implicitly which could also be fatal.

No it isn't. A 501c3 can't participate directly in a campaign. That's it, that's the whole rule. Plenty of 501c3's are nakedly and openly partisan. Center For American Progress is a c3. Heritage is a c3. AEI is a c3. Claremont is a c3.

I didn't say "partisan"

Again, I encourage you to read Patrick's post, specifically the section titled "July 2021: The CTT coalition attempts non-partisan interdiction of Trump PAC fundraising" where it describes their direct involvement against a single, specific candidate's PAC.

You could make the claim "well, technically he wasn't a candidate at that time" but considering the PAC was a registered FEC entity raising money for campaign rallies, that argument is weak at best and absurd in reality.

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

#26

Post by tptacek »

coldtea wrote: post #16
rexpop wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#27

Post by akerl_ »

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".

You have a right to free speech. Other people have the right to say they disagree with you, or refuse to do business with you because of your speech.

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

#28

Post by Redoubts »

tptacek wrote: post #26
coldtea wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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.

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

#29

Post by tptacek »

Redoubts wrote: post #28
tptacek wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

People in this thread keep saying reasonable things and then stepping on a rake in their last sentence. No, not "hence bank fraud". The bank fraud charges have nothing to do with what's happening here in this thread. SPLC is alleged to have created pass-through bank accounts under fictitious business identities. Everybody agrees that the thing SPLC was trying to do with those accounts was reasonable (or at least, well publicized and understood). They crossed over the line in trying to (a) improve the optics of what they were doing and (b) retaining a single major banking relationship instead of shopping for whatever bank would let them transfer money to the Grand Kloobah of the Kloo Klux Klan or whatever.

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

#30

Post by anitil »

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.
Post reply on HN