145,000 a year for being on the board of an organization the size and prominence of the SPLC does not sound all that egregious to me.
The KKK was a province of trailer dwelling losers before the SPLC started suing them. Debbie Ellis who used to work for the SPLC described the Klan as an easy target “easy to beat in court” and “easy to raise money on”. There was an estimated 10,000 members and its leadership had been infiltrated by the FBI. Taking on the KKK in curt was shooting fish in a barrel.
Here is what Stephen Bright the president of the Southern Center for Human Rights had to say about the SPLC “The positive contributions Dees has made to justice–most undertaken based upon calculations as to their publicity and fund raising potential–are far overshadowed by what Harper’s described as his “flagrantly misleading” solicitations for money. He has raised millions upon millions of dollars with various schemes, never mentioning that he does not need the money because he has $175 million and two “poverty palace” buildings in Montgomery. He has taken advantage of naive, well-meaning people–some of moderate or low incomes–who believe his pitches and give to his $175-million operation. He has spent most of what they have sent him to raise still more millions, pay high salaries, and promote himself. Because he spends so much on fund raising, his operation spends $30 million a year to accomplish less than what many other organizations accomplish on shoestring budgets.”
Right. Unless and until someone can figure out how to siphon the endowment of a non-profit to shareholders, I don’t see that as a problem. Being able to endure long contracted lawsuits is a good thing.
Board members are not employees. That’d be a conflict of interest. Here’s the board. Each head is clickable, and it tells you how they’re employed.
It’s an image, so I can’t copy and paste from it. But, according to it, the actual Board of Directors is 12 members, all of whom are unpaid. The CEO makes ~320K, the Chief Trial Counsel (Dees) makes ~327K. A total of 22 individuals make more than 100K.
Those are 2013 numbers.
ETA: Whether that compensation is appropriate, I don’t know. Something around 320K for running a big non-profit doesn’t seem to be unheard of.
I think the SPLC is very biased and don’t consider it a legitimate or persuasive source of information, but I’m conservative, and I doubt there’d be much accomplished trying to convince you of that, so I don’t think I’ll try. It’d be sort of like me starting a thread asking leftists to convince me that the NRA were evil incarnate.
Moderating
Haberdash, your persistent attacks on other posters with the claim that they dismiss evidence or hold wrong views exclusively based on a belief that Jews are bad, goes well beyond a difference of opinion and well into the range of trolling.
If you have factual evidence or logic that indicates that a poster is in error, post it.
If you continue to make the attacks personal, based on your own idiosyncratic view that the world is divided between only two groups, antisemites and prosemites, you are going to begin collecting Warnings for simultaneously engaging in personal insults, hate speech, and trolling.
[ /Moderating ]
For the record, Morris Dees is probably underpaid. A civil litigator of his stature could easily clear half a million a year.
Yes, it’s biased against hate groups, which they have a specific definition for: List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups - Wikipedia
And they don’t go after just white racists. The also target black separatist groups including the New Black Panther Party:
Their hatewatch blog claims to be “exposing the radical right.” They are leftist partisans. That’s what I call “biased”.
I don’t like it because their name only comes up in such a context:
Group XYZ, labeled a “hate group” by the SPLC…
(now stop reading and hate the hate group because SPLC says so)
He’s also very comfortably moderate.
During a controversy when a Texas university school newspaper was going to publish an article questioning the Holocaust, Dees said, “Let them publish it.” Then, he said, everyone should write in and explain why the article is wrong. He argued against censorship, even of the ugliest forms of hate-speech.
If they accurately assess such groups, and if there are a lot of them, you would have precisely that result. You would frequently see their name coming up in that context.
- not implying we are chock-a-block with huge and powerful hate groups, but that theres a lot of two bit outfits to keep up with. Hell, SPLC probably isn’t up to date with who’s arrived and who’s departed.
Is there any organization that SPLC has identified as a hate group that you feel doesn’t deserve the label?
That could mean that they’re biased, or it could could mean that there currently are no radical left hate groups in this country of consequence.
In any case I’m slightly confused about what you’re claiming. You put the word biased in scare quotes. Are you using the word in some non-standard way?
Unitarians, public radio, MSNBC…
He said ‘of consequence’
Pickings are mighty slim when it comes to radical lefty hate groups. Want to throw in vegan co-ops and yoga classes, bulk it up some?
You would have to engage in some real contortions to call yoga classes “hate groups”.
The SPLC hates bigots, so maybe they should list themselves, but Gödel might have something to say about that.