Defending Black Lives Matter … And The Alt-Right

February 6, 2017      Roger Craver

Make no mistake. Ever since the U.S. Presidential election political and ideological polarization has increased not diminished. It’s a dangerous trend that should concern and alert every nonprofit with a mission to advocate a point of view.

Now, as much as any time in history, it is essential that individuals be able to express and promote their viewpoints through affiliation with like-minded organizations, without exposing themselves to a legal, personal or political attacks of intimidation.

And now, more than any time in recent history, every advocacy nonprofit — liberal, conservative and those in the middle — are increasingly at risk of being compelled by the government to turn over their donors’ names and identities.

Over the past four years, The Agitator has alerted readers to this growing threat. As in efforts by right-wing Oklahoma Governor Scott Pruitt (now about to become the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency) to defund the Humane Society of the U.S. by the abuse of that state’s consumer protection laws. And efforts by liberal New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to attack nonprofits he disagrees with by invoking that state’s fundraising regulations to compel release of donor names. Here and here for starters.

As I write, it’s the liberals who are leading the charge to compel exposure of donor names and identities. Tomorrow it may be the Alt-Right leading the charge to expose the names and addresses of donors to Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ groups and organizations concerned with immigration.

Here’s where things stand today and why any thinking nonprofit should be on guard. In August, 2015 The Agitator  warned (Urgent Alert to U.S. Nonprofits: Immediate Action Needed ) that Kamala Harris, then the Attorney General of California (now a U.S. Senator for California), had launched a campaign against a right wing nonprofit attempting to compel it to hand over IRS 990 schedule B forms with donor names and addresses as a requirement for soliciting donations in the state in order to be legally registered as a charity in that state.

It happened that two of the most prominent donors to that group were allegedly Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who finance conservative and libertarian causes and spend heavily to promote Republican candidates.

Fortunately, a Federal District Court ruled against this freedom-wrecking move by California.  Unfortunately, the new California Attorney General decided to appeal the decision. The case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

This is a case of great moment. Nothing less than the fundamental free speech guarantee of the First Amendment and the due process guarantee of the 14th Amendment are at stake.

And so there’s quite a lineup of diverse nonprofits who have entered the case by filing amicus briefs. Conservative and right wing groups like Pacific Legal Foundation; Philanthropy Roundtable; state attorneys general from Arizona, Alabama, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, Texas and Wisconsin have also submitted briefs; and, significantly, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

I want to especially note the entry of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund into this case. You see,  it was the NAACP’s courage in standing up to Alabama officials by refusing to turn over its donor list that led to the 1958 landmark decision, Alabama v. Patterson.

Seeking to block civil rights progress by intimidating the NAACP, its members and contributors, the State of Alabama sought to compel the organization to turn over its membership and contributor list. The organization refused.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the NAACP and enshrined the concept of “associational privacy” by ruling “Freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Now — 59 years later — here we go again. The zealots on both sides are on the march. We can only hope the line of defense for the First Amendment holds in the federal courts.

Meanwhile, are you ready for the moment some over-zealous government agent in the form of a fundraising regulator or a state attorney general comes knocking on your door requesting the list of your donors?

Roger

P.S. For a detailed description of the case now before the Ninth Circuit and its implications — involving both the First Amendment and also the misuse of the IRS and tax code to silence or intimidate donors — see this article and the links to the briefs contained in this piece from the conservative Daily Caller.

 

 

4 responses to “Defending Black Lives Matter … And The Alt-Right”

  1. Gregory Warner says:
    February 6, 2017 at 8:02 am

    I’m not sure why Black Lives Matter was in the headline for this article.

    But you and your readers should know that Black Lives Matter is an antisemitic group that has called Israel an apartheid state and has accused Israelis of genocide while nothing can be further from the truth.

    These ideas are expressed in the Black Lives Matter platform. Furthermore they support the BDS (Boycott-Divest-Sanction) movement which has led to rampant antisemitism rising all over the world… especially on college campuses. My children have spent countless hours at their local Jewish Federation learning which colleges to select and how to confront antisemitism on campus.

    People like BLM (supposedly fighting racism) should not support terrorism, gay-bashing and antisemitism.

    I am Jewish. I have family in Israel. My great grandmother fled the pogroms in Russia after her father’s business was torched and her mother was killed in the street… for being Jewish. Yes, Russia had a holocaust no one remembers.

    Be very careful supporting movements that seek to harm peace loving democratic countries and people. Why people always turn to pick on the Jews is beyond me.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/11/black-lives-matters-movement-palestine-platform-israel-critics

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anti-semitism-is-back-will-you-stand-by-or-stand-up_us_576bfc8be4b016c12caba9a9

  2. Liz Jackson says:
    February 6, 2017 at 1:40 pm

    I also write as a descendent of Jews whose grandparents fled pograms in Eastern Europe. As a Jew I support BLM for its consistent platform for racial and economic justice at home and abroad, including its support for boycott divestment and sanctions (“BDS”) to hold Israel accountable to international law. BDS is a non violent movement to support freedom and justice and equality for Palestinians, because there is no alternative to justice or peace with fascist governments in power in Israel and now the US.

    How ironic that the previous commentator Mr. Warner has used this article on legal bullying of non profit orgs as an opportunity to jump in (off topic) and smear BLM for its principled support for Palestinian equality. The constant smear attacks against supporters of Palestinians as “antisemitic” and “terrorist” is a key tactic in the well documented campaign of concerted legal bullying to silence criticism of Israel. In fact, legal bullying of non profit orgs to suppress free speech on Israel goes part and parcel with smear attacks. See http://www.palestinelegal.org for more info. And Thanks to the agitator for this important piece on protecting freedom of association.

  3. Jordan Berg Powers says:
    February 6, 2017 at 2:03 pm

    Responding to the false comment above. As a Black Jew I can say without any doubt that BLM is not anti-Semitic.

    First Black Lives Matter is not an organization it is network of affiliated groups and local chapters. The idea being you can’t destroy a network by attacking one person or one chapter. So no BLM isn’t anti-Semitic.

    What you are referring to is one line in a very long document created by the Movement for Black Lives. They worked months to create a 22 page document covering all aspects of Black Life. One line calls for Israel an apartheid State and worthy of divestment. They are group affiliated with BLM but they do not speak for BLM. https://policy.m4bl.org/downloads/

    I don’t agree with the statement, but the above comment is the EXACT reason it happened.

    When we were tear gassed and attacked by the police, the Palestinian people were standing in solidarity, telling us how to treat it, how to withstand these tactics.

    There were a few Rabbis out in support but the wider Jewish community was totally absent. I know because in all the towns and cities I have lived in or have family in none of the Temples, none of the people have been out.

    If you only show up when you are personally affected, you hurt your own cause.

    We Jews can’t sit on the sideline of this civil rights fight, first because our religion compels us to act and second because we have a duty as a minority to raise our voices. Once we are out in support and people know us, it becomes easier to tackle the issues in the movement community against Israel.

    But you can’t be absent, be a part of the oppression then wonder why people side with the people who are with them and against people they see as a part of the oppression.

  4. Joe White says:
    February 6, 2017 at 2:19 pm

    Dear Roger — thank you again for bringing together the past and present and coupling it with relevant information for our industry. I learn something every day i read The Agitator — keep it up boys! JW

Ask A Behavioral Scientist

    Behavioral Science Q & A

    The Agitator Tool Box

    Ideas, applications, tools, processes, and case studies of break-through solutions in fundraising, including: