Which key figures and organizations funded or supported Klan activity during its 1920s resurgence?
Executive summary
The 1920s “second” Ku Klux Klan grew into a mass, national movement through a mix of professional publicity and fundraising, local political alliances, and cultural institutions rather than a single wealthy patron;Edward Y. Clarke and Elizabeth Tyler are credited as the publicity and fundraising architects who made the Klan profitable, while many local politicians, mid‑level businessmen, professional men and civic groups provided money, legitimacy and institutional support [1] [2] [3]. Prohibition‑era temperance organizations, sympathetic local officials and middle‑class Protestant networks overlapped with Klan aims and helped produce recruitment and resources at the community level [4] [5].
1. The professional fundraisers who turned the Klan into a money‑making machine
The revived Klan remained small until Edward Y. Clarke and Elizabeth Tyler brought strong publicity and fundraising skills that converted the group into a national, fee‑driven enterprise; historians and encyclopedias credit Clarke and Tyler with salesmanship that turned membership, regalia and rituals into steady revenue for the organization [1] [6]. William J. Simmons founded the 1915 revival, but Clarke and Tyler professionalized recruitment and merchandising — a business model that underwrote growth through paid organizers and a national campaign [1] [7].
2. Local political patrons and elected officials who supplied access and cash
State and local politicians provided direct support and reciprocal benefits: Klan endorsements, campaign organizing and mobilized voters in return for influence and public contracts. In Indiana and other states Klan backing helped elect governors and many state legislators; scholars note that by 1925 “over half the members of the Indiana General Assembly, the Governor, and many other officials” enjoyed Klan support [8] [9]. Local politicians sometimes funneled money, patronage or municipal contracts into pro‑Klan networks [9] [7].
3. Middle‑class professionals and civic networks that legitimated and funded local Klaverns
The Klan in the 1920s drew doctors, lawyers, ministers and other middle‑class professionals who provided dues, institutional cover and standing in communities; contemporary accounts emphasize that mainstream, civic‑minded men and women joined and put their social capital behind Klaverns and Klan charities [3] [2]. Klaverns donated to churches and community groups and used local social activities and rituals to convert membership dues into visible civic presence and local fundraising [2] [10].
4. Overlapping reform and temperance movements that expanded the Klan’s coalition
Prohibition and the temperance movement created ideological overlap and practical support for the Klan: temperance groups such as the Anti‑Saloon League and organizations like the WCTU shared goals and in many communities produced mutual reinforcement of organizing and social pressure, which aided Klan recruitment and legitimacy during the 1920s [4] [5]. Historians emphasize that “support for Prohibition represented the single most important bond” among Klansmen nationally and that temperance allies helped normalize Klan activism [4] [5].
5. Local business leaders, churches and fraternal networks as financial hubs
Rather than a single corporate backer, Klan finance often flowed from multiple local sources: dues and sales of regalia, donations from sympathetic businessmen, and contributions from churches and fraternal networks. Klaverns invested in public spectacles and even buildings (for example, Tulsa’s Beno Hall) that reflected substantial local financial resources and influence [2] [11]. The Klan’s model of selling membership and merchandise turned ordinary civic networks into steady revenue streams [1] [6].
6. Scandals and internal theft that reveal where the money actually went
The Klan’s rapid rise was financed by membership fees and merchandising, but internal feuding and financial scandal — including accusations of mishandled funds by local leaders — undercut support and exposed how much money circulated through paid organizers and state leadership [12] [13]. The 1925 Stephenson scandal and other local disputes showed that money flowed not only to public activities but also to the pockets and power struggles of Klan operatives [13] [12].
7. Limits of the record and competing interpretations
Scholars disagree on emphasis: some argue the Klan was a mass cultural movement embedded in mainstream Protestant life (Felix Harcourt, p2_s5), while others stress opportunistic profiteering by organizers and corrupt leaders [12] [13]. The sources document major funders and mechanisms — Clarke/Tyler, paid organizers, politicians, temperance allies and middle‑class networks — but do not point to a single grand financier; available sources do not mention a single national corporate sponsor or banker underwriting the 1920s Klan [1] [2].
Limitations: this account relies on the cited secondary sources’ summaries of fundraising and political alliances; detailed ledgers or private donor lists are not provided in the available reporting [1] [6].