Unmasking Fidelity





Forced Donor Disclosure Advocacy Group

Fiscal Sponsors:

Muslim Justice League

Political Research Associates

Community Labor United

Action Center on Race & the Economy

Asian American Resource Workshop

Resource Generation

Contact InfluenceWatch with suggested edits or tips for additional profiles.

Unmasking Fidelity is a far-left advocacy campaign that opposes privacy and anonymity for donors to right-leaning nonprofits, a free speech provision protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Unmasking Fidelity is a coalition of multiple center- and far-left activist nonprofits, including Muslim Justice League, Political Research AssociatesCommunity Labor UnitedAction Center on Race & the Economy (ACRE), Asian American Resource Workshop, and Resource Generation.

Campaign Against Fidelity Charitable

For more information, see Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund (Nonprofit)

The coalition’s name comes from Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, a donor-advised fund provider and the largest nonprofit dispenser of grants in the United States. A donor-advised fund (DAF) is a philanthropic vehicle for individuals and nonprofits to invest funds before disbursing them via the DAF provider as grants to other nonprofits.

While Fidelity Charitable maintains standards in which nonprofits it will channel donors’ funds to, in general the provider does not bar donations to politically or ideologically right- or -left-leaning organizations.

Unmasking Fidelity’s goals include pressuring Fidelity Charitable to disclose its donors, the fees the provider received for providing DAF services, and a pledge not to pass grants to conservative and right-leaning nonprofits, which Unmasking Fidelity labels “anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, and anti-LGBTQ+ groups” involved in “white supremacist violence.” 1

Threat Letter to Fidelity Charitable Leadership

In 2019, Unmasking Fidelity sent a letter threatening action against Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund if it failed to meet Unmasking Fidelity’s demands: 2

Abigail Johnson
Fidelity Investments
245 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02210

Dear Abigail Johnson,
I, the undersigned concerned citizen, am writing to voice my concern about Fidelity’s Charitable Gift Fund. In recent months, it has come to light that the Gift Fund has been used to provide financial support to groups that promote anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, and anti-LGBTQ+ views and practices. According to Fidelity’s policies, “virtually any IRS-qualified charity is eligible” to receive a donor-advised contribution. I urge you, as CEO
of Fidelity Investments, to discontinue any transmission of funds to groups whose statements or practices malign or attack entire classes of people because of their race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

The Gift Fund’s most recent available Form 990 for the 2016–2017 tax year indicates that the Fund made grants totaling $3.1 million to 18 organizations that groups with expertise in these fields and media outlets report have vilified and targeted classes of people. The Alliance Defending Freedom, identified by the Human Rights Campaign as “the largest anti-LGBT legal advocacy group in the nation,” received more than $600,000. The David Horowitz Freedom Center, widely known as a driving force of the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and anti-Black movements, received $834,853. The notorious white nationalist VDARE Foundation received $17,600 from Fidelity Charitable. The statements and actions of these organizations endanger our families and neighbors, and threaten our core democratic values.

There is an important, evolving public policy debate over strengthening legislation and regulation of donor-advised funds. Financial services companies are developing policies to ensure that they do not transmit money to fund hateful activities. For instance, payment processors have acted to ensure that their platforms are not used as conduits to fund “hate groups.”

I appreciate that donor-advised funds such as the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund can support the public good; however, allowing these funds to act as conduits to support organized
groups that promote bigotry does not. It is also unacceptable for Fidelity to earn money from such activities, either through management fees or investment products. Instead,
policies and procedures that screen out hateful activities should become a standard part of charitable due diligence. At a time when we are experiencing growing divisions among
many of our communities, we need corporations like Fidelity, that are based here in Massachusetts, to take a stand against hate and be a positive model for other businesses
across the state and across the country.

I ask that Fidelity, the largest charity in the United States of America, embrace the true definition of the word charity, which is “goodwill toward…humanity”. I see nothing charitable in directing funds to groups whose prejudice and bigotry lead them to deny the rights and humanity of others, and I call on you to discontinue the practice of allowing Fidelity’s Gift Fund to transmit money to groups known for their hateful activities.
I respectfully request that a small delegation of the groups listed below meet with you to discuss this important issue and look forward to you reaching out to Christopher Zizzamia of Community Labor United at [email protected] to schedule that meeting.

Thank you,

1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East Massachusetts
ACLU of Massachusetts
Alternatives for Community and Environment (ACE)
AFSCME Council 93
American Federation of Teachers, Massachusetts
Bargaining for the Common Good
Boston Education Justice Alliance
Boston Teachers Union
City Life/Vida Urbana
Chinese Progressive Association
Community Labor United
Foundation for Fair Contracting
Greater Boston Labor Council
Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center
Machinists District 15
Massachusetts AFL-CIO
Massachusetts Education Justice Alliance (MEJA)
Massachusetts Teachers Association
Massachusetts Voter Table
Mass Laborers District Council
Mass Senior Action Council
Metro Boston Building Trades
Muslim Justice League
Neighbor to Neighbor
Neighbor to Neighbor Mass Action Fund
New England Regional Council of Carpenters
OPEIU Local 453 at the MBTA
Painters District Council 35
Public Higher Education Network Of Massachusetts (PHENOM)
Political Research Associates
Resource Generation
Student Immigrant Movement
SEIU 32BJ Local 615
SEIU Local 509

Response Letter from Fidelity Charitable

In January 2022, a group of centrist and right-leaning groups, donor-advised fund providers, and Fidelity Charitable clients released a public letter addressed to Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund CEO Abigail Johnson urging her to refute Unmasking Fidelity’s demands: 3

To Fidelity Investments and Fidelity Charitable Leadership,

We write in response to Unmasking Fidelity’s list of demands that would jeopardize donor privacy and charitable choice. The signatories to this letter include, among others, recipients of Donor-Advised Funds through Fidelity Charitable, financial advisors and investment professionals who manage Fidelity
Investment accounts, and individual Fidelity Investment account holders.

As a leader in philanthropy, Fidelity Charitable has an outsized opportunity (and responsibility) to resist demands to inject polarization, division, and enmity into charitable giving. A healthy philanthropic culture has at least two crucial features. First, donor intent must be respected. Donors must be free to
give to a broad diversity of causes and interests. In this way, charitable giving contributes significantly to a flourishing, open marketplace of ideas, which is essential to the maintenance of a free society and for driving societal improvements.

Second, donor privacy must be protected. The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided a case involving donor privacy. In Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the Court struck down a state donor disclosure regulation because it violated the First Amendment rights of charities and their supporters. Requiring that nonprofits disclose their donors not only exposes existing donors to the threat of doxing and harassment, but also discourages charitable giving and participation in the
marketplace of ideas. Public advocacy is for everyone, not just those able to weather abuse. And donors have good reason to fear abuse. In our present age of cancel culture and social media mobs, too many are quick to ostracize, lambast, and threaten those with whom they disagree.

Acceding to Unmasking Fidelity’s demands will immediately harm the philanthropic freedom of Fidelity’s donor advised fund account holders and cause untold damage to America’s rich philanthropic tradition. Unmasking Fidelity has demanded that Fidelity “[p]ublicly disclose all contributions in the last five years” to 10 target organizations. They also plainly want Fidelity to impose viewpoint-based limits on the charities and causes its account holders can support.

Unfortunately, Unmasking Fidelity cites the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate group” list in making these demands. Commentators and journalists across the ideological spectrum have warned that this list is unreliable and politically motivated.
Politico acknowledged the longstanding criticism that SPLC is “becoming more of a partisan progressive hit operation than a civil rights watchdog.” Shikha Dalmia observed that “the SPLC is not up to the task” of monitoring actual hate groups because “[i]t is too busy enforcing liberal orthodoxy against its intellectual opponents.” And Nathan J. Robinson, the editor-in-chief of Current Affairs, scrutinized SPLC’s “Hate Map” and concluded that it is an “outright fraud” and “a willful deception designed to
scare older liberals into writing checks to the SPLC.”

Politico rightly questions whether “[a]t a time when the line between ‘hate group’ and mainstream politics is getting thinner and the need for productive civil discourse is growing more serious, fanning liberal fears, while a great opportunity for the SPLC, might be a problem for the nation.”

There are vanishingly few places where those of good faith can find common ground. Donor privacy is one of them. As the Supreme Court observed in Bonta, parties that “span the ideological spectrum” filed briefs supporting protecting donor privacy—“from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund; from the Council on American-Islamic Relations to the Zionist Organization of
America; from Feeding America—Eastern Wisconsin to PBS Reno.”

Rather than drive a wedge where there is common ground by adopting Unmasking Fidelity’s divisive and corrupting proposals, Fidelity should continue to work for the good of all its account holders, and society at large, by vigorously protecting philanthropic freedom.

We support Fidelity’s stance of cause neutrality and encourage you to stay true to this commitment by offering donor advised fund account holders the maximum number of charitable choices. To do so, we urge Fidelity to permit account holders to donate to any recognized 501(c)(3) and refrain from imposing viewpoint-based litmus tests on donor’s charitable choices. To be clear, we are not calling upon Fidelity to remove SPLC or any groups supporting Unmasking Fidelity from donor advised funding eligibility.

You should give donors the full spectrum of charitable choice. Tolerance is a two-way street. Financial institutions that respect those with diverse values and beliefs contribute to a public culture of trust and tolerance—values that drive a healthy economy and strong democracy. Societal trust and
tolerance are possible only when the companies that we depend on for goods and services, jobs, and a voice in the public square respect viewpoint diversity.

We thank you in advance for your consideration and welcome any follow-up conversation you would find beneficial. Please direct any inquires to [email protected].

The Undersigned

Michael P. | Farris Alliance Defending Freedom President, CEO
Alan Sears | Alliance Defending Freedom Former President, CEO
Jeremy Tedesco | Alliance Defending Freedom SVP Corporate Engagement
Kevin Roberts, Ph.D. | The Heritage Foundation President
Lawson Bader | DonorsTrust President, CEO
Robert Netzly | Inspire Investing CEO
Mike Sharrow (C12) | C12 Group CEO
Dr. Peter W. Wood | National Association of Scholars President
Eli Lehrer | R Street Institute President
Howard Slugh | Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty Founder, General Counsel
Christopher DeMuth | Hudson Institute Distinguished Fellow
Dr. Jenna Robinson | James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal President
Nicole Neily | Parents Defending Education President, Founder
Dr. William B. Allen | Michigan State University Emeritus Dean, Professor
Daniel Pipes | Middle East Forum President
Dr. Wilfred M. McClay | University of Oklahoma Professor, Dept. Chair
Ralph Westfall | California State Polytechnic Univ. at Pomona Professor Emeritus
Dr. Richard Speed | California State University at East Bay Former Lecturer
Dr. Warren Treadgold | Saint Louis University Professor
Rev. Dean Nelson | Frederick Douglass Foundation Chairman
Prof. Nathan Harter | Christopher Newport University Professor
Dr. Greg Bonner | Villanova University Associate Prof. Emeritus
Dr. Robert J. Lieber | Georgetown University Professor Emeritus
Robert Bortins | Classical Conversations CEO
Jeff Baxter | 11 Tribes Ventures
Dr. John M. Frame | Westminster Seminary, Reformed
Theological Seminary Emeritus Professor

(The signatories list also includes an addition 23 pages of individuals totaling multiple thousands.)

Funding from Donor-Advised Fund Providers

Unmasking Fidelity’s coalition members have received substantial funding from multiple donor-advised fund (DAF) providers whose practices are consistent with those of Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund.

Between 2014 and 2019 Resource Generation received grants from the following DAF providers: 4

Between 2016 and 2019 Community Labor United received $95,000 from Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund. 5

Between 2010 and 2019, Political Research Associates received grants from the following DAF providers: 6

Between 2017 and 2019, the Action Center on Race and the Economy Institute received $15,000 from the Proteus Fund, a left-of-center DAF provider. 7

Between 2010 and 2019, the Asian American Resource Workshop received $86,750 from the Boston Foundation, $12,000 from Fidelity Charitable, and $7,500 from the Proteus Fund. 8

Between 2017 and 2019, the Muslim Justice League received $15,000 from the Proteus Fund and $8,250 from the Boston Foundation. 9


  1. “About Us.” Unmasking Fidelity. Accessed Jan. 20, 2022.
  2. Letter to Abigail Johnson. Unmasking Fidelity. 2019. Accessed Jan. 20, 2022. Archived:
  3. Letter to Unmasking Fidelity. Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund. Jan. 18, 2022. Accessed Jan. 20, 2022. Archived:
  4. Data from FoundationSearch. MetaSoft. Accessed Jan. 20, 2022.
  5. Data from FoundationSearch. MetaSoft. Accessed Jan. 20, 2022.
  6. Data from FoundationSearch. MetaSoft. Accessed Jan. 20, 2022.
  7. Data from FoundationSearch. MetaSoft. Accessed Jan. 20, 2022.
  8. Data from FoundationSearch. MetaSoft. Accessed Jan. 20, 2022.
  9. Data from FoundationSearch. MetaSoft. Accessed Jan. 20, 2022.
  See an error? Let us know!