Bankrolling Bigotry: An Overview of the Online Funding Strategies of American Hate Groups Beirut Berlin London Paris Washington DC The Global Disinformation Index is a UK-based not-for-profit that operates on the three principles of neutrality, independence and Copyright © Institute for Strategic Dialogue (2020). Institute transparency. Our vision is a world in which we can trust what we for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) is a company limited by guarantee, see in the media. Our mission is to restore trust in the media by registered office address PO Box 75769, London, SW1P 9ER. providing real-time automated risk ratings of the world’s media ISD is registered in England with company registration sites through a Global Disinformation Index (GDI). The GDI is number 06581421 and registered charity number 1141069. non-political. Our Advisory Panel consists of international experts All Rights Reserved. in disinformation, indices and technology. www.isdglobal.org For more information, visit www.disinformationindex.org The Global Disinformation Index and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue gratefully acknowledge the support of The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Bankrolling Bigotry: An Overview of the Online Funding Strategies of American Hate Groups 3 Contents Executive Summary 4 Project Overview 4 Key Findings 5 Recommendations 6 Project Overview and Approach 7 Definitional Framework 7 Understanding Hate 7 Identifying Hate Groups for Analysis 7 Sub-categorising Hate Groups 7 Understanding Funding Mechanisms 10 Methodology 12 Findings 13 Prioritisation of Funding Mechanisms by Different Subsets of Hate Group 13 Use of Charity Status by Hate Groups 14 Overview of the Use of Funding Platforms by Hate Groups 16 Use of Charity Aggregation Sites 16 Use of Platforms that Offer Donations from Purchases 18 Use of Crowdfunding Platforms 18 Use of Platforms Offering Flexible Fund Collection Services 18 Use of Online Retail Services and Platforms 19 Use of Content Subscription and Livestreaming Platforms 21 Use of Onsite Donation Forms 21 Use of Cryptocurrencies 22 Conclusion 24 Annex 25 4 Bankrolling Bigotry: An Overview of the Online Funding Strategies of American Hate Groups Executive summary Project Overview Hatred is surging across the United States. Figures Another area where there has been successful released by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) activism over recent years is in limiting the ability suggest that the number of hate groups rose steadily of hate groups to raise funds. Advocacy groups like between 2014 and 2018,1 including a 55% growth in SumOfUs have helped wage campaigns that put the number of number of white nationalist groups pressure on companies whose products are used to active between 2017 and 2019.2 In 2018 the FBI facilitate the funding of hate.6 A number of individuals announced that hate crimes were at the highest involved in promoting hatred have been banned from volume they had been for 16 years,3 and recent platforms such as PayPal, limiting their ability to make analysis from the Center for Strategic and International money or raise donations.7 Studies identifies white supremacists as the most significant terror threat facing the US.4 This matches The extent to which hate groups use different global trends where white supremacist terrorism has platforms to raise funds is currently not widely spiked by 320%,5 in part buoyed by a broad morass understood, however, so their efforts to limit this of hate against communities including Jews, activity are not always effective. To improve our ability Muslims, immigrants, people of colour, people with to check the scale and nature of online funding by disabilities and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, hate groups, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) queer and others (LGBTQ+) community. and Global Disinformation Index (GDI) have analysed the digital footprints of 73 US-based hate groups, This hatred has come to the streets over the course identified through existing studies conducted by of 2020. As civil rights protesters have demonstrated the SPLC and Anti-Defamation League (ADL), with across the country, groups such as the Proud Boys additional coding and vetting by ISD and GDI analysts. have incited hatred and participated in violent These groups were then assessed for the extent clashes. Such hatred threatens the safety, security to which they used 54 funding mechanisms. The and wellbeing of minority communities, and societal research aimed to map out the online infrastructure harmony writ large. behind hate groups’ financing and fundraising in order to support efforts to defund and therefore disempower There is a clear need for greater efforts to be made to hate movements in the US. tackle hate groups. While these groups remain free to mobilise they can target minority communities Through this research, we found that hate groups with hatred and violence, as well as proselytise and use popular platforms such as PayPal, Facebook recruit new members. The struggle against these Fundraisers and Stripe, although these platforms often actors plays out in many ways. Civil society groups have explicit policies supposedly preventing their use produce counter-messaging, which undermines the to facilitate hate or violence. Through this work we propaganda of hate; specialist practitioners work have improved our understanding of how different to de-radicalise individuals involved in extremist types of groups raise money using a broad spectrum movements; and activists and academics build of online platforms and services. This work has evidence bases and advocate for changes from social informed a series of recommendations which, media platforms to improve and enforce their policies if enacted, could diminish the ability of those who against hate-mongers. seek to spread hatred to succeed. Bankrolling Bigotry: An Overview of the Online Funding Strategies of American Hate Groups 5 Key Findings • We analysed the digital footprints of 73 US- • More than one-third (38%) of the platforms based groups involved in promoting hatred analysed do not have a policy which explicitly against individuals on the basis of their gender, prohibits hate groups from using their services. sexuality, race, religion or nationality. We A majority – 29 of the 47 (62%) platforms – included checked for their use of 54 online fundraising in the investigation had policies designed to push mechanisms, which included 47 platforms, 5 back against or ban hateful activity in some way. different cryptocurrencies and the presence of membership or consulting services, ultimately • Hate groups used 24 of those 29 (83%) platforms finding 191 instances of hate groups using online with policies against hate speech, showing a fundraising services to support their activity. failure to implement and enforce these policies. • The platform most commonly used by the • Different types of hate groups prioritised hate groups studied was Charity Navigator, different funding mechanisms. When identifying an organisation that assesses charities in the hate groups for analysis we subcategorised US and ranks them according to a certain set them according to their ideology. Through this of criteria; currently it is used by 29 groups. The we found that white supremacist organisations second most commonly used platform was PayPal, were least likely to use funding mechanisms currently used by 21 of the groups we analysed, such as onsite donation forms, crowdfunding followed by Facebook Fundraisers, currently used mechanisms or onsite retail, instead preferring by 19 groups. Charity Navigator and Facebook to use cryptocurrency donations. This potentially Fundraisers are both powered by Network for reflects proactive policy enforcement by funding Good, a fundraising software company that allows platforms, suggesting that policy enforcement any non-profit with a profile on the non-profit can become an effective tool limiting the activities information service Guidestar to use their service to of hate groups online. It may also be a result of raise funds. the preferred mobilisation strategies of these groups, which prioritise decentralised organisation • A number of the hate groups analysed in this and the incitement of violence. Conversely anti- report have non-profit status in the US: 32 of LGBTQ+ groups, which are in some instances well- the 73 (44%) hate groups have either 501(c)(3) or established organisations that operate under the 501(c)(4) tax status in the US. This potentially helps banner of legitimate religious groups, had the most legitimise hate groups and provides them with diverse funding strategies. avenues through which to raise money. 6 Bankrolling Bigotry: An Overview of the Online Funding Strategies of American Hate Groups Recommendations • Platforms should adopt policies which limit • Congressional debate on whether such groups their use by hate groups: We found that 38% of should qualify for non-profit tax status: 44% of the platforms studied did not have any policies the hate groups in our study are registered non- in place prohibiting their use by hate groups. profit organisations in the US. An Internal Revenue Furthermore, some platforms only had limited Service (IRS) designation may act as a sort of kite policies in place prohibiting violent organisations, mark, making platforms and payment providers but ignored their use by non-violent hate groups. wary of acting against a group. Through our The mass proliferation of hatred against minority research we found evidence that being registered