This Isn’t About SPLC. It’s About All of Us.

Shannon McCracken, President & CEO, The Nonprofit Alliance (TNPA)

The April 21^st federal indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has sparked predictable responses along predictable lines. As the Chronicle of Philanthropy reported in an email last week, progressive organizations have rallied in defense. Conservative outlets have amplified the charges. And in the middle, where most of the nonprofit sector actually lives and works, there’s silence.

That silence is dangerous. Not because it signals agreement or disagreement with SPLC’s mission, methods, or alleged actions. It signals that we’ve accepted a new normal, a test of long standing protections for nonprofit independence and civil society, where the pursuit of nonprofits happens along partisan lines, and our response to that pursuit must, too.

We cannot afford this divide, and we should not tolerate it among ourselves.

This is not a discussion about SPLC’s work or the specific allegations in the indictment. We take no position on whether SPLC’s informant program was well-designed or whether its disclosures to donors were adequate. Those questions belong in court, adjudicated through the legal system we’ve built and must continue to support in a democratic society. Our concern is whether operational decisions about how to pursue a mission – decisions that don’t involve personal enrichment – should be subject to criminal fraud prosecution.

This is a discussion of precedent. This case should concern every nonprofit in America, regardless of your mission or political alignment.

The indictment alleges that SPLC “defrauded donors” by paying informants who infiltrated extremist groups, including the KKK, through entities that obscured who controlled the money. This is not how nonprofit fraud has historically been defined or prosecuted. Cases that have actually resulted in criminal charges for nonprofit fraud include:

●New Heights: Executives diverted $10 million in federal funds to purchase personal homes and cars. Criminal charges: Wire Fraud.
●Feeding Our Future: Submitted fake invoices for child meals to inflate revenue 59-fold, funneling money to personal accounts. Criminal charges: Wire Fraud and Bribery.
●Cancer Recovery Foundation: Deceived donors with only 1% of $18 million raised actually reaching patients; the rest going to personal enrichment. Result: FTC and state lawsuits.

In established precedent, prosecuted fraud involves personal enrichment, money diverted from the organization’s mission for private benefit. The SPLC case, as described, involves money used for organizational activities, specifically paying informants to monitor and infiltrate hate groups. The government is attempting to reclassify mission-driven operational spending as donor fraud. That is a significant and unprecedented legal departure.

Further, the activities cited in the indictment, including “racist postings” and “fundraising” by informants maintaining their cover, are constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment. Under Brandenburg v. Ohio (395 U.S. 444, 1969), speech is only unprotected when it constitutes incitement to “imminent lawless action.”⁴ No specific crimes committed by these informants are named in the indictment. No donors are identified as having been deceived.

Whether these allegations have legal merit will be determined in court. But even if the case ultimately fails, the process itself becomes the punishment. The SPLC will spend untold time and resources – donor dollars – tied up in litigation. Other organizations watching will think twice before engaging in similar work. And a dangerous new framework will have been established for how the government can scrutinize nonprofit operational decisions under the guise of “donor fraud.”

If you’re a conservative nonprofit sector leader reading this and thinking “good riddance to SPLC,” please consider carefully: What happens when the political winds shift?

We don’t have to look far for a cautionary example. As we have noted previously, in 2013 the IRS subjected conservative organizations, particularly Tea Party groups, to heightened scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status, using keywords like “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “9/12 Project” to flag applications for intensive review, including intrusive demands for donor lists and social media posts.

The outrage was bipartisan and appropriate. In 2017, the Department of Justice settled with over 400 affected groups, issuing a formal apology and acknowledging that “the IRS’s use of these criteria as a basis for heightened scrutiny was wrong” and that “viewpoint discrimination is a violation of the First Amendment.” (Linchpins of Liberty v. United States, No. 1:13-cv-00777, D.D.C. 2017.)

At the time, leaders could set aside their feelings about the Tea Party movement and agree on a clear principle: government agencies cannot use their power to target organizations based on political viewpoint. That principle should not change based on who’s in power or which organizations are being targeted.

There is, however, a critical distinction worth noting. The IRS scandal involved administrative targeting, creating delays and harassment in the tax-exempt application process. The SPLC indictment involves criminal prosecution. The stakes are categorically higher. Potential prison time, organizational dissolution, and the full weight of the federal justice system deployed against a nonprofit for how it pursued its mission.

If the government can successfully prosecute a civil rights organization for paying informants to monitor hate groups, then any administration can use that precedent against organizations it disfavors. Today it’s SPLC. Tomorrow it could be a conservative religious liberty organization, an environmental group, a think tank, or a community foundation dispersing grant funding.

The legal theory being tested here, that operational decisions about mission-driven spending constitute donor fraud, is breathtakingly broad. If it succeeds, it hands every future administration a weapon to wield against nonprofits that don’t align with its priorities.

This precedent will outlast the current administration by decades. We are talking about a framework that could be used by administrations of both parties, indefinitely, to intimidate and drain resources from organizations they oppose.

Even without a conviction, the damage is being done. The indictment itself serves as a chilling warning to every organization engaged in work the current administration disfavors.

Civil liberties advocates warn that the frameworks being deployed against SPLC could easily be used against immigrants’ rights groups, racial justice organizations, reproductive rights advocates, and others. But the threat doesn’t stop at progressive organizations. Any nonprofit engaged in work that any administration might find inconvenient becomes vulnerable once this precedent is established.

The danger isn’t only in the substance of this particular indictment. The danger is in normalizing the use of federal prosecutorial power against nonprofits based on political disagreement.

The moment we’re standing in is precarious. When only partisan organizations speak up, it reinforces the false narrative that this is a partisan issue. It allows the framing to become “liberal nonprofits defending liberal nonprofits” rather than what it actually is: the nonprofit sector defending the independence of all nonprofits.

The response to the SPLC indictment has been telling. Organizations clearly aligned with progressive causes have issued strong statements. Conservative outlets have celebrated. And the vast middle, the centrist organizations, the community foundations, the local nonprofits focused on education, health, arts, and human services, have largely remained quiet.

I understand the impulse. Why wade into controversy? Why risk alienating donors, board members, or community partners by taking a stand on something that feels political? Why divert our attention, resources, time, and voice to someone else’s battle?

Silence is a choice, and it’s one that leaves us vulnerable and weak.

When the IRS targeted Tea Party groups, the outcry wasn’t limited to conservative organizations. Good-government groups, civil liberties organizations, and nonprofit sector leaders across the spectrum recognized the threat to nonprofit independence. That broad-based response mattered. It established that targeting nonprofits based on viewpoint was unacceptable, regardless of which viewpoints were being targeted.

We need that same clarity now.

We don’t need to agree with SPLC’s mission in order to defend their right to pursue it without politically motivated prosecution. We don’t need to endorse their methods to recognize that paying informants to monitor extremist groups is fundamentally different from funding those groups. We don’t need to make this about left versus right. We need to make it about nonprofit independence versus government overreach.

The silent majority middle is exactly where the strength of the nonprofit sector resides. When we speak, we speak with the credibility of organizations that serve communities across the political spectrum. Our silence cedes that credibility to the loudest voices on either extreme.

Protecting our purpose means:

Recognizing that an attack on one nonprofit’s independence threatens all nonprofits’ independence. The precedent being set doesn’t respect ideological boundaries. It creates a playbook that any administration can use.

Refusing to let our response be dictated by partisan alignment. We can condemn government overreach without endorsing every action of the organization being targeted. We can support due process and the rule of law while also calling out patterns that threaten sector-wide independence.

Using our voices now, not waiting until the threat reaches our own doorstep. By the time your organization is in the crosshairs, it will be too late to build the broad-based support that could have prevented it.

Creating spaces where these conversations can happen. We need forums where nonprofit leaders can grapple with these questions together, where diverse perspectives can be heard, and where we can build collective understanding about what’s at stake. That is exactly what TNPA exists to do.

I’m not calling for platitudes or generic statements of concern. I’m calling for the nonprofit sector, particularly those of us in the broad, diverse, politically varied middle, to recognize what’s happening and to speak clearly about what we stand for.

We stand for the independence of nonprofits to pursue their missions without government interference based on political alignment.

We stand for due process and the rule of law, which means letting courts adjudicate the merits of cases while also calling out patterns of targeting that threaten the sector.

We stand for a nonprofit sector that can weather political changes, that can serve communities regardless of which party holds power, and that maintains its independence as a vital counterweight to government.

Most of all, we stand together – not because we agree on every issue, but because we recognize that our collective strength depends on protecting the purpose and independence of all nonprofits, not just the ones whose missions we personally support.

The precedent being set in the SPLC case will outlast this administration. It will be available to future administrations of both parties. And if we allow it to be established through our silence, we will have no one to blame but ourselves when it’s used against organizations we care about.

The choice we make now, to speak up or stay silent, will determine what kind of nonprofit sector we have for decades to come.

Protect our purpose. All of our purposes. Now.

---

Sources & Additional Information

“Southern Poverty Law Center Hit With 11-Count Indictment,” The NonProfit Times, April 22, 2026. See: https://thenonprofittimes.com/npt_articles/southern-poverty-law-center-hit-with-11-count-indictment/

Need to Know This Week, “Progressive Nonprofits Voice Solidarity With SPLC After Federal Charges,” The Chronicle of Philanthropy, April 24, 2026.

United States v. Connie Bobo (New Heights), 2025. Federal criminal charges for wire fraud involving diversion of $10 million in federal funds for personal use.

United States v. Feeding Our Future defendants, 2022–2024. Federal criminal charges for wire fraud and bribery involving fraudulent invoices inflating revenue 59-fold. See: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-more-defendants-plead-guilty-feeding-our-future-fraud-scheme

FTC v. Cancer Recovery Foundation of America, and related state actions. See: https://www.ftc.gov/node/44537

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). U.S. Supreme Court established the “imminent lawless action” test for unprotected speech. See: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/

Linchpins of Liberty v. United States, No. 1:13-cv-00777 (D.D.C. 2017). DOJ settlement with over 400 conservative groups targeted by IRS; formal apology issued acknowledging viewpoint discrimination violated the First Amendment. See: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-announces-department-justice-has-settled-plaintiff-groups

---

Shannon McCracken is President & CEO of The Nonprofit Alliance (TNPA), a national nonprofit infrastructure organization whose mission is to promote, protect, and strengthen the nonprofit sector. TNPA is committed to creating safe spaces for all voices in the nonprofit sector to be heard.