Southern Poverty Law Center Transfers Millions in Cash to Offshore Entities

The SPLC has turned into a fundraising powerhouse, recording more than $50 million in contributions and $328 million in net assets on its 2015 Form 990, the most recently available tax form from the nonprofit. SPLC's Form 990-T, its business income tax return, from the same year shows that they have "financial interests" in the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, and Bermuda. No information is available beyond the acknowledgment of the interests at the bottom of the form.

However, the Washington Free Beacon discovered forms from 2014 that shed light on some of the Southern Poverty Law Center's transfers to foreign entities.

article

Should be interesting hearing why they have these accounts. Before you dimiss the news source, look at the tax documents inside the article. The evidence seems documentable. I'm sure people who have donated to them have no clue hundreds of thousands of dollars have flowed into offshore accounts, similar to setups found in the Panama Papers.

a reply to: pavil



Could it be SOROS? Nahhhhh..........

Tax experts expressed confusion when being told of the transfer.

"I've never known a US-based nonprofit dealing in human rights or social services to have any foreign bank accounts," said Amy Sterling Casil, CEO of Pacific Human Capital, a California-based nonprofit consulting firm. "My impression based on prior interactions is that they have a small, modestly paid staff, and were regarded by most in the industry as frugal and reliable. I am stunned to learn of transfers of millions to offshore bank accounts. It is a huge red flag and would have been completely unacceptable to any wealthy, responsible, experienced board member who was committed to a charitable mission who I ever worked with."

"It is unethical for any US-based charity to invest large sums of money overseas," said Casil. "I know of no legitimate reason for any US-based nonprofit to put money in overseas, unregulated bank accounts."

I wonder why a "non-profit" would need to do this, hmm?

Someone is skimming the cash methinks.

And here everybody thinks the SPLC is so primm & proper !!

Dirty Little Secrets !!

Dirty Money.

Money Laundering Bastards !!

a reply to: pavil

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation.

The minimum amount paid to an officer, director, trustee, or key employee in 2015 was $140,000 in base salary, not including other compensation. The group spent $20 million on salaries throughout the year.

The SPLC, which claims to boast a staff of 75 lawyers who practice in the area of children's rights, economic justice, immigrant justice, LGBT rights, and criminal justice reform, reported spending only $61,000 on legal services in 2015.

What a ripoff.

originally posted by: xuenchen
And here everybody thinks the SPLC is so primm & proper !!

Dirty Little Secrets !!

Dirty Money.

Money Laundering Bastards !!

I want to hear a defender of the SPLC try to explain this one. Doesn't sound like normal operating procedures for a Non Profit.

They must have taken lessons from the Clinton Foundation.

I used to have respect for the SPLC. That faded after I realized how politically bias they can be. Now we see that they're apparently running a charity scam. Sad.

This is their 990 tax filing.

990s.foundationcenter.org...

The SPLC has assets of over $400 million.
Last year they spent $61,000 on legal actions.
That's worse than the Red Cross for pity's sake.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
The SPLC has assets of over $400 million.
Last year they spent $61,000 on legal actions.
That's worse than the Red Cross for pity's sake.

It's crap like this that makes me distrustful of charities or non profits in general. I want to help people when I can, but the amount of money that actually goes to where it is suppose to, or gets to the people that need it seems to be miniscule.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
The SPLC has assets of over $400 million.
Last year they spent $61,000 on legal actions.
That's worse than the Red Cross for pity's sake.

The amounts of assets were an eye-opener to me. It's not like they have tons of overhead compared to other Non Profits. A Bunch of Lawyers running a non profit, what could go wrong?

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
The SPLC has assets of over $400 million.
Last year they spent $61,000 on legal actions.
That's worse than the Red Cross for pity's sake.

Yikes. But again, they're looking increasingly like a Clinton Foundation-style scam charity, which makes small token efforts to maintain a legitimate appearance, while diverting the vast majority of funds into secret accounts.

I wonder if the SPLC is going to abruptly close up shop, at the same time that its leaders just coincidentally decide to retire to the French Riviera?

a reply to: pavil

I'd be interested in knowing why they are moving sums to offshore accounts. That seems like a legitimate question for a non-profit. However, the Free Beacon article is also glossing over some things.

Brad Dacus, the president of the Pacific Justice Institute, a Sacramento-based group that defends "religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties without charge," was listed on the "hate groups" list.

"Why is the Southern Poverty Law Center doing this? It's simple. They want to vilify and isolate anyone that doesn't agree with their very extremist leftist policy and ideology," Dacus told the Times. "This isn't about defending civil rights; this is about attacking civil rights."

Much like this article is about vilifying SPLC? Like many extremists in the "Christian Right," Brad Dacus and the "Pacific Justice Institute" hide behind a mission statement of protecting "religious freedoms." Here's the reality of PJI:

Anti-LGBTQ group admits it lied about transgender student “harassing” classmates

Last week, anti-LGBTQ group the Pacific Justice Institute started a conservative media firestorm with its claim that a transgender teenager in Colorado was “harassing” her classmates in the girls’ bathroom. The allegations, after being picked up by Fox News and other right-wing media outlets, were quickly debunked by a transgender advocacy group that reached out to the school’s superintendent, who explained that no harassment had occurred. In reality, the complaint stemmed from one area mother who objected to the school’s policy allowing transgender students to use facilities that correspond to their gender identity.

After having its lie exposed, PJI issued a statement explaining that the very presence of a transgender teenager in the girls’ bathroom is “inherently intimidating and harassing,” and, in a separate statement, said the organization would be “standing by our allegations.”

The first thing PJI did was issue a press release claiming that a trans student was sexually harassing other students:

Nigh tmare: Teen Boy Harasses Girls in Their Bathroom, Colo. School Tells Girls They Have No Rights

Parents at the school, located near Colorado Springs, became irate when they learned that a teenage boy was entering girls’ bathrooms and, according to some students, even making sexually harassing comments toward girls he was encountering. When the parents confronted school officials, they were stunned to be told the boy’s rights as a self-proclaimed transgender trumped their daughters’ privacy rights. As the controversy grew, some students were threatened by school authorities with being kicked off school athletic teams or charged with hate crimes if they continued to voice concerns. The parents became aware of PJI’s Notice of Reasonable Expectation of Privacy and contacted PJI for help.

This was quickly picked up by Fox News, Daily Mail, and a host of right-wing media outlets who engaged in all sorts of hysteria. Except it wasn't true. There were no instances of "sexually harassing comments towards girls" at all. Once the superintendent had been contacted and it was revealed that there had been no such thing, retractions.

At that point, after being busted lying, PJI changed its tune to the presence of a trans student was inherent sexual harassment and intimidation.

What constitutes a "hate group" is really rather a subjective measure. PJI is certainly anti-LGBT if you follow their press and the comments of Dacus who has a history of making outlandish claims like SCOTUS striking down DOMA would lead to incest being legal.

To Dacus and PJI, SPLC is a "hate group" because SPLC categorizes them as a "hate group" because of their anti-LGBT advocacy.

The question is really should non-violent groups be clumped with violent groups and labeled "hate groups?" I think there's an argument to be made on both sides.

Same sort of deal with "Liberty Counsel," whose founder appears to be claiming that because they're not racists, they can't be labeled a "hate group" by anyone. But here's the thing — is anyone actually claiming that SPLC is making things up rather than just complaining about how they're being categorized? You can go directly to SPLC to see what they cite about Liberty Counsel and Staver:

Liberty Counsel is a legal organization advocating for anti-LGBT discrimination under the guise of religious liberty.

In Its Own Words

“Homosexual conduct can result in significant damage to those involved who engage in such conduct. There is no evidence that a person is born homosexual. And there is evidence that people can change. Our culture is being pressured with demands that our homes welcome, our daycares embrace, our schools indoctrinate, our businesses promote, and our laws reward this harmful sexual behavior.” – Liberty Counsel website, “Resources on the Family,” 2015.

“Now [the group will] allow homosexual young boys in the Scouts and allow homosexual leaders in the Scouts, and what are you going to have? You are going to have all kinds of sexual molestation. This is a playground for pedophiles to go and have all these boys as objects of their lust.” – Mat Staver, “Faith and Freedom Radio,” August 2015.

“If you ultimately promoted same-sex marriage and everyone started to go towards same-sex marriage, what would happen to society? It would just simply cease to exist. Moreover, you’d have rampant increase in diseases. Already, you have rampant increase in diseases among same-sex activities, specifically men having sex with men. Same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships is destructive to individuals and it’s destructive to our very social fabric.”—Mat Staver, “VCY America,” December 2013.

Are those not actual quotes and excerpts? No, they're real. Would anyone read them and not conclude that he is anti-LGBT? I should hope not. Nobody ever thinks they're wrong. Nobody ever sees themselves as a member of a "hate group." To Staver, he's a great defender of society — and Christendom — against the scourge of homosexuality.

It's not in the Washington Examiner's (a right-wing news outlet) interest to provide any background. Is the SPLC a socially "progressive" organization? Clearly. And?

Are they doing something shady with their money? That's yet to be determined.

a reply to: pavil

Sadly: Psychopaths have learned how to manipulate sensitive folks, and tax-rules, and have realized how to make massive profits from so-called charities and foundations.
Plus: it also gives them a fake-platform to lobby for changes, that benefit their semi-legit businesses, for them and their buddies.
Then they give tax-deductible donations to their buddies foundation, and reduce the tax-load on their semi-legit businesses!

They win: middle-class and poor lose, again.

(PS: copy/pasted this comment from 2nd thread on same subject, which will probably be closed.)

a reply to: Asktheanimals

why would an entity with a " 75 strong in house legal team " need to spend anything on legal issues ?

non profit skimming cash....surprise surprise

probably moved it offshore so they could invest it into cryptos, then not have to pay income tax on the gains.

Heck, looking at my portfolio after the past few weeks, why didn't I think of that?

a reply to: pavil

Pretty ridiculous that they would do it...but is it legal? If it's legal then what's the issue?

Despite the fact that they are an abhorrent group that espouses ideals that are counter to the american ideal, the law applies equally to them as it does to a group which doesn't run counter to the american ideal.

a reply to: pavil

400 million in sssets seems a lot for a 'poverty' center.