Donors aren't looked at as a class. The issue is that EACH donor had a right to know how the money was used, and the SPLC never informed that they often funded activities that resulted in "hateful" conduct, and instead represented the opposite. They only have to have defrauded one donor.

What it really looks like is that that were running a racket to keep the money flowing in by creating or furthering what they were allegedly fighting.

And calling someone an "informant" doesn't make them so. The SPLC, unlike law enforcement, lacks any sovereign immunity whatsoever and has a legal obligation of discolure and honesty to its donors. So attempting to liken them to law enforcement is just stupid.

When I was in law school an alum got disbarred and jailed for a felony for setting up a fake drug by to prove the local pd was crooked. While the PD can do that, a citizen cannot. He learned the hard way. He should have done more research.