Isn't part of the problem here that a lot of the BLM donation money has gone to fund stuff like buying their big property? There have also been other scandals regarding misuse of the donation money and it has made many regional BLM groups call to question where the money is going. There is very little accountability and transparency yet we have large companies like Amazon feeding them money via donations.

Why are people implying this money must have come from BLM donations? She wrote a book that was on the NYT bestseller list, and presumably has other income streams beyond her work for BLM. I have no idea whether BLM is allocating their money properly or not, but it seems quite plausible that she has earned all the money in question through legitimate means.

I'm not sure people are. They're implying it could have, and that they'd like to hear more about it. (In response to the controversy, Cullors gave an interview saying she's never taken a salary, and BLMGNF issued a statement saying she's gotten a total of $120,000 from them since the beginning in 2013, although both statements were followed by weird rants about how dangerous it is that anyone would ask.)

People think that money may be coming from the donations.

In such cases it is reasonable to have a proper calm discussion, not to ban those asking the question.

They certainly could donate it, either to private nonprofits, or to the state (https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html) - as their ideology would dictate.

But the real reason there is outrage about this story is because BLM organizations received hundreds of millions of Dollars in donations in 2020, and it seems highly improbable that a long-time activist has somehow saved up enough to afford multiple millions in real estate purchases. Several BLM chapters rejected the foundation's offers last year and instead issued a public call for increased transparency, claiming they had received almost no funding over the years from the parent organization (https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-02-23/ap-exc...). All this suggests there is corruption or grifting happening.

Marxist are not supposed to be wealthy, because all their earnings should be equally distributed across all the employees in their business.

Marxism, by definition, opposes private property ownership. So yes?

Historically yes, Marxists have been extremely wealthy and generally would end up owning substantial amounts of property.