Regardless, I'd encourage you to think about the actual moral actions presented in this article. Is the system that the SPLC used and extended an inherently bad system (in this case, acting as a source of disallowed organizations for banks)? Furthermore, given the existence of that system, was the SPLC's use of it bad? Are the SPLC's goals good or bad? Were their methods in the timeline taking up the latter half of the article good? Despite the generally negative tone of the article, I think they were a morally acceptable method of achieving their goals. Essentially, the article is describing the SPLC's efforts to use large-scale community organizing and pressuring organizations to accomplish their moral goals. The article's disapproving tone makes this sound like a conspiracy and... it kinda is. But then, can't you describe almost any charity as a conspiracy to accomplish a moral goal? As the article notes, the SPLC has used similar tactics in the past to combat, eg, the KKK, and I doubt many people would imagine that as a conspiracy to target and censure particular law-abiding citizens.

In short, despite the article's somewhat negative tone overall, I don't think anything described is actually a negative thing (well, the factual bank fraud is, but not the conspiracy to implement moral goals). The description of the methods they used are essentially a negatively-worded description of just about any sort of charitable organization. You could describe the DNC as a conspiracy to install into power authoritarians who want to curb speech they don't want ("hate speech"), for example, or you could describe it as a grassroots organization to ensure people are fairly represented in government and their wishes (curbing racism) are achieved.