After years of the Southern Poverty Law Center demanding that charitable foundations blacklist conservative and Christian nonprofits, the shoe is finally on the other foot: Fidelity Charitable has denied contributions to the SPLC. Fidelity hasn’t targeted the SPLC for ideological reasons in the same way the SPLC targets conservatives, however—America’s largest sponsor of donor-advised funds is merely following its own policies regarding nonprofits under criminal investigation. As The New York Times first reported, Fidelity cut off grants to the SPLC from its customers, who have more than 350,000 donor-advised funds—charitable giving accounts that allow them to maximize tax savings while supporting eligible nonprofits. “Fidelity Charitable is aware of an ongoing governmental investigation into the Southern Poverty Law Center,” the company wrote in an email to a donor, the Times reported. “Consistent with our grant-making standards and practices, the organization is not an eligible grant recipient during the ongoing investigation.” Fidelity Charitable’s website states that “a grant recommendation might be declined” if the organization “is being investigated for alleged illegal activities or non-charitable activities, such as terrorism, money laundering, hate crimes, or fraud.” Another banking behemoth, Vanguard Charitable, has a similar policy. “Vanguard Charitable grants only to organizations that meet IRS eligibility requirements,” a spokesperson for the company told The Daily Signal in a statement Wednesday. “If we become aware an organization has been charged with a crime by state or federal authorities, we pause grantmaking while the matter is pending.” Last week, a federal grand jury indicted the SPLC on wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy charges for sending money to members of the very white supremacist groups the center claims it exists to dismantle. The SPLC did not deny funding members of the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations, but insisted the funds were part of an informant program that it used to prevent violent attacks. The indictment, however, suggests that the SPLC didn’t just pay these field agents—it actually supervised “racist postings” for an organizer of the 2017 Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally. The SPLC will have its day in court, but Fidelity’s policy is clear: Grants to nonprofits facing criminal charges may be rejected. The SPLC’s History of Debanking Conservatives may be forgiven for indulging in a little bit of schadenfreude at this news. As I documented in my book, “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center,” the SPLC weaponized its history of suing KKK groups into bankruptcy to smear conservatives. It places mainstream conservative and Christian nonprofits on a “hate map” with Klan chapters, claiming the map reveals the “infrastructure upholding white supremacy.” This “hate map” inspired a terrorist attack in 2012. The SPLC doesn’t just release this list every year to its donors and the media, exaggerating “hate” in order to drum up relevance and scare donors into ponying up cash. It also encourages social media platforms and companies like Fidelity to blacklist the groups on the map. The SPLC has partnered with the Council on American-Islamic Relations to publish “Hate-Free Philanthropy” reports that call on companies in the charitable sector to blacklist “anti-Muslim hate groups.” The Amalgamated Foundation, a project of the SEIU-owned Amalgamated Bank, launched the “Hate Is Not Charitable” campaign, urging donor-advised funds to blacklist the groups on the SPLC “hate map.” Amalgamated Bank has, thankfully, sunsetted the campaign, and removed it from the website. In 2023, the SPLC released a report on “extremist finance,” pressuring donor-advised funds operated by major banks to blacklist “hate groups” like Alliance Defending Freedom and “antigovernment extremist groups” like Moms for Liberty. In 2017, Vanco Payments abruptly ceased providing payment processing services to the Ruth Institute. Vanco Payments noted that the Ruth Institute “has been flagged by Card Brands as being affiliated with a product/service that promotes hate, violence, harassment and/or abuse.” It did not specifically cite the SPLC, but the “hate” accusation likely traces back to the SPLC’s branding the institute an “anti-LGBTQ hate group.” In 2022, PayPal froze the Moms for Liberty account, providing no explanation. Only after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, pressured the company did it restore the account and allow Moms for Liberty to access the $4,500 in that account. Some companies, such as Eventbrite, make no secret of the fact that they use the SPLC “hate map” to blacklist organizations, refusing to do business with them. In the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network sent an email to leadership at major banks, urging them to stop “bankrolling bigotry,” specifically citing the SPLC on “hate groups.” SPLC in Fidelity’s Doghouse It remains to be seen whether a jury will convict the SPLC on criminal charges, but the indictment has already cost the SPLC the ability to receive the very same donor-advised funds it seeks to block from funding others. The move also marks a sea change for Fidelity. Just a few years ago, conservatives warned that Fidelity appeared to be using the SPLC “hate map” to blacklist conservative nonprofits. Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody sent a letter threatening legal action, and it seems the company reconsidered. Now, SPLC is in Fidelity’s doghouse. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving subject.

As Republican and Democratic candidates slug it out in debates to be California’s next governor, candidates who fit into the independent category continue to be shut out. In Tuesday night’s debate hosted by CBS News, the players on the stage included two Republicans and six Democrats—and zero independents. Elaine Culotti, an independent candidate who has polled as high as 23% on Polymarket but now is under 1%, claims the media is at fault for her sagging popularity. If candidates get included in media polling and do well, they get to share the debate stage. If they’re excluded from polls, tough luck. “Every single poll is the same problem, which is a violation of equal time,” Culotti told The Daily Signal. “Equal time should require that all candidates and all parties get to be on the poll. Otherwise, the poll is the mechanism in which they choose the debate candidates.” The Pomona College website notes the candidates in Tuesday night’s debate were decided based on having at least 1% support in both the Emerson College and LA Times/UC Berkeley polls. The selection process was run by Asian Pacific American Public Affairs (APAPA), in partnership with CBS and Pomona College. Culotti said she does not fault CBS News moderators. Rather, it’s the polling process that needs fixing, she said.  “I don’t believe for one minute that any CBS News anchors knew that no party preference wasn’t actually polled in their own polling system. They didn’t conduct the polls, they don’t know,” she said. The independent candidate added that it’s not just a CBS News issue, but one all debate organizers have due to their polling systems. According to data from the Independent Voter Project, at least 30% of Californians do not fit into the categories of Democrat or Republican. Yet all the debates so far have included only the two major parties. Culotti posted a video to her X account asking each major candidate if they thought she should have been on stage. Their answers were unanimous: “yes.” Should independent / NPP candidates be invited to debates? The answer is yes and most of the Democrats and Republicans agree. pomona college california governor debate Chad Bianco Steve Hilton Matt Mahan Katie Porter Tom Steyer Tony Thurmond Antonio Villaraigosa pic.twitter.com/YkBHHQZaY0— Elaine Culotti (@lipstickfarmer) April 29, 2026 “There are plenty of NPPs [no party preference] that should have been on this stage before the people that were,” Republican candidate Chad Bianco said in reply. Democrat San Diego Mayor Matt Mahan, another candidate for governor, responded, “We should have it be as open and competitive as possible. If it’s truly a scientific poll and it asks people who you support, and any candidate comes above a certain threshold … I think they should be on the debate stage.” Every other candidate Culotti interviewed agreed. Emerson asked independents who they would vote for without letting them pick an independent candidate. What the… california governor race poll candidate pic.twitter.com/XhZy1qy3CZ— Elaine Culotti (@lipstickfarmer) April 17, 2026 While CBS News did release a poll moments after the debate, it focused solely on issues primary voters said were most important to them. CBS News did not immediately respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment. Paul Mitchell, a longtime California political consultant, told The Daily Signal having independent candidates on the debate stage might not matter as much as Culotti thinks. “Independent voters are not voters who vote for these independent candidates—they vote for Democrats and Republicans at the same rate as actual Democrat and Republican registered voters, or they don’t vote because they are less engaged,” he said.  “Don’t think of a no party preference voter as being a part of a club that shares a voting pattern,” Mitchell added. 

Vice President JD Vance described his experience at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner Saturday night, where a shooter attempted to assassinate the president and other Cabinet officials. “I’m sitting up there on the stage with some journalists and obviously with the president of the United States a few seats to my right, and there’s a lot of commotion. You kind of hear some loud noises,” he told Fox News’ Will Cain on Wednesday. “I had no idea what it was. And before I had any idea what was going on, I started seeing people sort of duck under their tables or respond to what was going on far in the back of the ballroom. And then an agent comes and whispers in my ear, basically says, sir, we have to leave.” Vance said he heard an agent was shot and worried that the man was injured or worse. The agent was shielded by a bulletproof vest. .@VP: "Political violence right now is coming not exclusively, but largely from one side of the aisle… If you're part of the left wing in this country, you gotta look yourself in the mirror and say, 'Why is it that so many of the people who are firing guns at their political… https://t.co/Vj2KdKxqPm pic.twitter.com/maxjlbW1r5— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 29, 2026 “The thing that I really gained an appreciation for is the amazing job the agents of the Secret Service do,” Vance said. “You saw they went right to me, they went right to the president of the United States. They put their lives in harm’s way.” The suspected shooter, Cole Tomas Allen, 31, was charged Monday with attempting to assassinate the president of the United States. He also faces charges of transporting a firearm across state lines and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. Vance said he has gotten used to having a security detail over the past two years, but the incident renewed his appreciation. “I just feel very grateful to them and very grateful for what they do, and frankly, grateful to God that that agent who was shot was not seriously hurt,” he said. “It could have been a lot worse, but the law enforcement did a great job well, and we should all be grateful for that.” Vance called for an end to Americans inciting violence upon political opponents. “The political violence right now is coming not exclusively, but largely from one side of the aisle,” he said. “The president has now faced three serious attempts on his life in just the past year and a half. Of course, Butler, Pennsylvania; there was a situation at Mar-a-Lago that the media didn’t really cover,” he said. “And then, of course, there was the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner.” “So I think really, it’s incumbent upon everybody, but particularly those who are driving some of the narratives that Donald Trump has somehow invited this violence upon himself, that killing your political opponents is somehow justified if you’re engaged in that kind of rhetoric,” he continued, “you need to check yourself.”

The Louisiana v. Callais Supreme Court decision on Wednesday has upended the 2026 midterm elections, with members of the Congressional Black Caucus’ reelection chances under threat should Republican-controlled legislatures move to redistrict. In a 6-3 ruling, the court declared Louisiana’s congressional map, which was ordered by a court to have two majority black districts in compliance with a previous interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, an “unconstitutional racial gerrymander.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., appearing alongside fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus at a Wednesday press conference, characterized the ruling as part of a Republican effort to “rig the midterm elections.” The ruling is a major plot twist in a long redistricting battle in which Democrats had appeared to gain the upper hand. It could open the way for red states to eliminate majority-minority districts that were mandated under the previous interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. Georgia Republican Party Chairman Josh McKoon called on his party Wednesday to redistrict in the Peach State after the ruling. Similarly, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Rep. Barry Moore, R-Ala., have called on their states to redistrict. At the Wednesday press conference, Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala., called for blue states to gerrymander their maps unanimously in favor of Democrats. “I’d take 52 seats from California. I sure would. And 17 seats with Illinois” Sewell said. “Because at the end of the day, they’re rigging this election to try to win. And we can’t just sit back here and do nothing.” In response to the ruling, New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul said in a post on X that she’s “working with the Legislature to change New York’s redistricting process.” An independent commission currently manages the state’s redistricting. The high court’s decision could fuel Democrat frustration with the court. Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., called for Democrats to attempt to rework the court if they regain power. “We will fight for Supreme Court reform, we will pursue term limits for justices, and we will do what it takes to restore integrity, accountability, and trust,” she said. Jeffries similarly put the court on blast, calling it the “Trump court.”

The following is a preview of Daily Signal Politics Editor Bradley Devlin’s “Signal Sitdown” interview with Mollie Hemingway. The full interview premieres on The Daily Signal’s YouTube page at 6:30 a.m. EST on April 30.This transcript has been slightly edited for clarity. Bradley Devlin: You start at the end of the [Brett] Kavanaugh saga to talk about Justice [Samuel] Alito. Why do you do that?  Molly Hemingway: Well, partly it just worked as a scene to open, because Justice Alito was moving into former Justice Anthony Kennedy’s chambers at the front of the court as the Kavanaugh confirmation had been finalized.  When that was finalized, you had braying protesters, some of whom were arrested inside the Capitol building, some who went over to the Supreme Court to try to tear down these very large doors that they had no ability to tear down, climbing the statues. And they were saying from their improvised audio systems that they hoped people could hear them inside the court—and they could.  It was very weird because we have branches of government that are subjected to political pressure, namely the executive branch and the legislative branch. The judicial branch is not supposed to be that way. They have lifetime appointments. Their pay is protected so that if congressmen get mad about how a decision has gone, they can’t cut their pay and try to force them out that way.  And yet the Left, through these massive networks, has figured out that precisely because they aren’t political animals, that’s an opportunity to exploit for political machines.  Devlin: This was incredibly radicalizing for a whole bunch of people in the conservative movement—younger people in the conservative movement.  But was it radicalizing for Alito, sitting there and hearing this stuff?   Hemingway: Oh, there recently was a story about Justice Sonia Sotomayor being very vicious and personal against Justice Kavanaugh, and one thing I thought spoke well of everybody involved was that it was Kavanaugh’s colleagues who were more upset by that than Kavanaugh.  I do think that Kavanaugh might have a thick skin at this point. He does, and he’s very forgiving, but his colleagues were appalled. This is not done.  And I mean, I get into a lot of these types of stories—what’s happening behind the scenes at the court. Traditionally speaking, it is totally fine to disagree vehemently with your colleagues on the court, and you’re supposed to put that in your written opinion and your written dissent.  Then apart from that, you get along and you speak well of each other in public. You always uphold the integrity of the court. What we’ve seen recently is, as the three liberal justices have struggled with lack of control over the court, they’ve started publicly going after their colleagues, publicly undermining the integrity of the court.   Devlin: I think I first became Alito-pilled when I read his dissent from Bostock. That was the first time where I had really gotten turned on to Alito’s jurisprudence and started doing a little bit more research.  And who is this Samuel Alito guy? Because I like a lot of what [Antonin] Scalia had to say. I like a lot of what Clarence Thomas has to say—both of them legends. But this Alito guy has something else to him that I’ve really enjoyed in reading his court opinions.  And also, it isn’t so much about the textualism and the originalism. He’s really about being prudent, yes, and connecting Supreme Court jurisprudence to an enduring moral order that I think really comes from the Declaration of Independence.  And I think that’s what kind of separates his jurisprudence apart from Thomas and Scalia. And, you know, you walk around this conservative movement, and the divide amongst the normies is, are you Scalia-pilled or are you Thomas-pilled?  Some people are both. That’s totally fine. There’s a large overlap in the middle for the Venn diagram. But Alito—was he underrated before Dobbs? His star is rising right now, it feels like.  You mentioned the public polling that suggests Alito is one of the lesser-known Supreme Court justices. What is happening with the Alito pill?  Hemingway: I love everything you said. I feel like I’m gonna steal some of this when I’m talking about him. This is kind of how I came to write it.  And if I can just say, personally—forgive me—from a libertarian background, so I am so used to— Devlin: we all were— Hemingway: I was just obsessed with Scalia. I was obsessed with Thomas.  I’m still obsessed with Thomas.  Devlin: Me too.  Hemingway: They are liberty-minded in a way, libertarian-minded in a way, that Alito is really the conservative on the court. He is the conservative.  So you have five people with originalist—they self-identify as originalists—and that just means you believe that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its original meaning, not whatever you’re feeling like on a given day.  But within those five, you have big variations. I think it’s fun to explore those variations.  You mentioned Bostock, which was—I think [Neil] Gorsuch is a fantastic justice. That was a horrible decision that he did, and I have no problem saying that as much as I can.  I mean, it was—he said that when the Civil Rights Act was passed, that the people who passed that intended it for—or, you know, he says it also includes trans people.  You can’t have different standards for men who identify as women and women—actual women. And it’s ludicrous. It’s preposterous. I hope he knows that by this point.  Alito calls him out—and quite beautifully. I mean, they’re friends, but he does not respect that opinion. He said it, you know, in his dissent.   The Alito book comes about in part because when I was working on that Kavanaugh book with Carrie Severino, even Alito’s colleagues were thinking it was weird that nobody talks about Alito.  You know, they’re like, he’s the giant on this court. He’s brilliant. He does things that nobody else can do. He’s amazing in oral argument. He writes these masterpieces, and yet nobody talks about him.  It’s because he’s the opposite of a celebrity justice. He’s not appearing on Broadway or going to the Grammys or giving flowery speeches.  He just does his work humbly, keeps his head down, and moves on.  But to me, a man like that is worthy of knowing more about, honoring for whatever good traits you can see there, and emulating in whatever way is possible.  But I just have to say, Bradley, that there is a certain type of conservative attorney in town who has been saying to me for years, it’s Alito.  Everybody talks about Scalia and Thomas, but it’s Alito. And I think they’re all great.  And I think they all—and in fact, they also think they all worked together well, and that Thomas and Alito continue to work together well precisely because they have some differences that play off each other nicely.