It's the opposite: elected or not, governments are strictly limited in their ability to do anything like what SPLC did, because they are bound by the Constitution. Private entities are not; they're free to associate, advocate, and advocate for associations or disassociations, generally however they'd like.
I guess this case is especially interesting and novel because of how the government has deputized banks as ersatz law enforcement, and banks have delegated decision making to SPLC as ersatz compliance officers.
I’m not sure what the law could and should be in this case, but I suspect it’s woefully underspeced to the chagrin of most parties.
People in this thread keep saying reasonable things and then stepping on a rake in their last sentence. No, not "hence bank fraud". The bank fraud charges have nothing to do with what's happening here in this thread. SPLC is alleged to have created pass-through bank accounts under fictitious business identities. Everybody agrees that the thing SPLC was trying to do with those accounts was reasonable (or at least, well publicized and understood). They crossed over the line in trying to (a) improve the optics of what they were doing and (b) retaining a single major banking relationship instead of shopping for whatever bank would let them transfer money to the Grand Kloobah of the Kloo Klux Klan or whatever.
If they had created entities and called them "investigative agencies" or "detective agency" to the banks it would have all been above board. But they didn't.
I was personally feeling like the law is too broad and being weaponized against them until the bits about SPLC and allies trying to cut banking access to a Political Action Committee were dropped (it shouldn't matter whose). That's quite beyond the pale for any pro-democratic institution.
