You advise. They decide.

1 min read · May 15, 2026
New Power Labs

Last month, a U.S. federal grand jury indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) on charges of wire fraud and money laundering, stemming from its informant program to infiltrate hate groups. The SPLC has denied all charges and called the indictment politically motivated.

An indictment is an allegation, not a conviction. The SPLC remains a recognized 501(c)(3) in good standing and an organization with a decades-long track record of dismantling groups like the Ku Klux Klan.

Within days, Fidelity Charitable, Vanguard Charitable, and Goldman Sachs blocked account holders from directing grants to the SPLC through their donor-advised funds, citing internal policies that suspend grantmaking during criminal proceedings regardless of whether the charges have merit. This is not a universal standard: smaller providers like Daffy continued their grants to the SPLC. The largest sponsors moved first and fastest to restrict.

Whether in Canada or the U.S., donor-advised funds are advisory by design. Donors recommend and sponsoring charities decide.

Donor-advised funds are meant to help donors deploy capital in line with their values. But in politically charged environments, institutional risk management can become highly reactive.

If allegations alone are enough to freeze giving, then changes in political power can indirectly shape which causes remain fundable – long before courts or regulators reach conclusions. Donors may begin avoiding organizations working on contentious issues altogether.

That creates a troubling question: are donor-advised funds simply philanthropic tools, or are they increasingly vulnerable chokepoints in contested civic debates?

Narinder
New Power Labs

Like what you’re reading? Subscribe to get weekly Equity Shots in your inbox.