When federal prosecutors finally brought down Al Capone, it wasn’t for murder, extortion, racketeering, or the violence that defined his criminal empire. It was for tax evasion. The charge was real. The conviction was legitimate. But no serious student of history believes tax evasion told the whole story of Capone’s criminal empire. It was simply the charge prosecutors believed they could most readily prove. Today, the Southern Poverty Law Center stands federally indicted on charges involving bank fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering.

Those charges are serious. But for those familiar with the SPLC’s destructive path, the indictment is just the tip of the iceberg of what appears to have been a much broader system of coordinated influence and institutional coercion.

First, I want to commend the FBI and the Department of Justice for their investigation and indictment. I am sure there are some here today who spent time with the FBI during this investigation. I spent considerable time with them explaining SPLC’s work and how their influence in the financial world impacted us as a Christian nonprofit. 

With the indictment of SPLC, which has been the Left’s vanguard in their attack on conservative organizations who stood in their way, cowardly corporate figures who kowtowed to SPLC are starting to talk. So, we are learning more.

But there are several realities we need to understand.

Recognizing that traditional hate organizations like the Ku Klux Klan were drying up, the SPLC adjusted its business model by appointing itself as the national arbiter of “hate.” Leveraging its storied reputation from the civil rights era, it expanded its targets far beyond violent extremist groups.

The first reality we need to understand is this: although the indictment focused on SPLC’s money-raising scheme, SPLC’s real focus was its institutional influence on government, media, and corporate America.

Over time, SPLC hate and extremist classifications evolved into far more than media narratives. Their labels increasingly became a form of reputational risk assessment used by banks, payment processors, technology companies, financial compliance systems, law enforcement, media organizations, and even elements of the federal government.

The jewel of the SPLC operation was its Intelligence Project, which became deeply influential as the government, media, and finally financial institutions used their biased data in determining which organizations were viewed as acceptable participants in the financial and digital marketplace.

In November of 2010, the first wave of Christian organizations was placed on the SPLC hate map and hate list, with Family Research Council being among the most prominent.

In August of 2012, a gunman entered our headquarters in DC intending to carry out a mass shooting. He shot our building manager before he was disarmed. He carried 100 rounds of ammunition and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches, which he intended to stuff into the mouths of his victims. Why FRC? The gunman, Floyd Corkins, later confessed to federal agents that he selected FRC after using the SPLC website and hate map.

That, unfortunately, was not the last shooting related to individuals publicly targeted by SPLC. In 2017, then-Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), and Charlie Kirk last year.

Following the shooting at FRC, we appealed to SPLC to remove organizations like ours because it resulted in an act that was officially deemed domestic terrorism. They did not respond.

It is clear they did not want to remove the labels because of the institutional influence that had grown around them. The ability to silence the left’s opponents. 

Around 2016, the SPLC led an ad hoc coalition of left-wing activist groups that began pressuring technology companies and financial institutions to deplatform and defund conservative organizations. PayPal was among the early targets, although its initial success was limited.

Then came Charlottesville.

Charlottesville was a catalytic event that rapidly accelerated SPLC’s efforts. It was a game-changer for them in terms of their efforts to bully corporations. 

With that in mind, let me insert information directly from the federal indictment, which identified one of the many extremist group members allegedly funded by the SPLC: the individual identified as F-37. According to the indictment:

“A member of the online leadership of the chat group that planned [PLANNED] the 2017 ‘Unite the Right’ event in Charlottesville, Virginia, and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC. F-37 made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees. Between 2015 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-37 more than $270,000.”

Following Charlottesville, major corporations publicly aligned themselves with the SPLC. Apple donated $1 million. JPMorgan Chase and others followed.

Was Charlottesville designed to be a catalytic event to further SPLC’s efforts to move reluctant corporations?

Post Charlottesville in August of 2017, the ad hoc coalition formally organized into what became known as Change the Terms, led by the SPLC and the Center for American Progress.

The timeline of Change the Terms closely parallels the rapid acceleration of debanking and deplatforming directed at conservative and Christian organizations. BB&T, now Truist, notified us that, in accordance with our services agreement, they can, “at any time, close an account at our discretion.” 

It’s a bit ironic that SPLC’s bank let them operate known fraudulent accounts for over a decade, according to the indictment. 

Change the Terms sought to establish standards for technology and financial companies that would deny digital access and funding mechanisms to organizations deemed extremist by the SPLC’s definition.

SPLC officials were explicit about this strategy.

In congressional testimony delivered on January 15, 2020, SPLC official Lecia Brooks stated:

“For decades, the SPLC has been fighting hate and exposing how hate groups use the internet. We have lobbied internet companies, one by one, to comply with their own rules to prohibit their services from being used to foster hate or discrimination. A key part of this strategy has been to target these organizations’ funding.”

Brooks continued:

“On Oct. 25, 2018, the Change the Terms coalition, including the SPLC and other civil rights groups, released a suite of recommended policies for technology companies that would take away the online microphone that hate groups use to recruit members, raise funds and organize violence. In response to Change the Terms’ advocacy, several Silicon Valley leaders have made promising changes that align with the coalition’s vision for a safer online world.”

But Brooks went further, openly describing the pressure campaign:

“The public exposure was half the battle. We conducted the other part of the campaign privately. SPLC officials held dozens of meetings with top Silicon Valley executives. Some companies acted. Some took half steps. Others did little or nothing. But eventually, the far-right extremists who depended on Silicon Valley were beginning to feel the pain.”

What SPLC appears to have done, according to reports, is bully the cowardly corporations, leveraging their political connections, including regulators.

And finally, she said:

“Hate groups have clearly been damaged by the efforts of the SPLC and its allied organizations, including the Change the Terms coalition, to fight them and their funding sources online. But the fight is far from over.”

The fight is far from over.

This brings me to the second reality.

The indictment paints a picture that SPLC was propping up some of the very extremist entities it publicly claimed to be dismantling.

And the indictment makes clear these were not undercover informants or “snitches,” as we used to call them when I was a police officer. In some cases, these were individuals allegedly running or helping run operations.

The evidence appears to suggest that these extremist organizations served a larger purpose: providing potent imagery that immediately marginalized legitimate conservative and Christian organizations that were listed alongside these groups.

We need to be clear: this was not about SPLC’s financial survival.

For anyone tempted to feel sorry for the SPLC and start a GoFundMe account for its legal defense, SPLC’s 2024 audited financial statement shows an endowment fund of approximately $734 million.

Nor should anyone assume this indictment marks the end of the SPLC. They have more lives and tentacles than the Iranian regime.

While many financial institutions that partnered with or relied upon SPLC classifications beginning around 2017 have begun distancing themselves from the organization, the SPLC still maintains enormous institutional reach.

Its school-based program, Learning for Justice, formerly Teaching Tolerance, still reportedly reaches roughly 500,000 educators. Every public school system in America should be asked whether SPLC curriculum materials are being used in their schools.

SPLC’s public labeling system became far more than a public list. Whether by design or evolution, it functioned as a strategic weapon against conservatives who stood in the way of the Left’s agenda. Behind it, SPLC designations were increasingly used by media organizations to marginalize or exclude targeted individuals and groups, while also influencing banking access, digital platforms, fundraising capacity, and overall public legitimacy.

The indictment may focus on bank fraud and wire fraud. But like Al Capone’s tax evasion case, there is much beneath the surface: a sophisticated system of influence designed not merely to oppose ideas, but to marginalize and economically punish those who hold them.

These entities that collaborated with SPLC and did real harm to individuals and organizations should be held accountable as well. 

And if America is to remain a nation where freedom of speech, religious liberty, and political dissent truly survive, then the broader conspiracy facilitated and directed by the SPLC must be confronted, exposed, and, where illegal conduct occurred, those responsible held accountable. Just as importantly, safeguards must be established to ensure such a system is never allowed to operate again.

This article originally appeared here.