The Latest NRA Dumpster Fire!

[5whiskey]

I haven't been around in a while. I haven't left TFL for good just been busy outside of the US. I know the title is provocative, but I think in this case it is absolutely warranted. I saw this article earlier today and knew that I would have to find a way to log on to TFL...

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/21/8399...-troubles-have-cost-the-organization-100-mill

Long story short, at a NRA board meeting in January one of the members or staff took it upon themselves to record a portion of the board meeting. They happened to catch 'ole Wayne LaP himself saying that the NRA has seen $100 Million in lost revenue attributable to the legal troubles they have encountered in the past couple years on the recording. According to 'ole LaP, that is just lost revenue alone unless he mispoke. The article also highlights some legal expenses incurred by the NRA. Excerpt as follows...

And legal costs remain a heavy burden on the organization: In the ongoing litigation between the NRA and Ackerman McQueen, its former public relations firm, a brief filed by the firm on April 15 indicates its belief that the NRA has paid its outside legal counsel "over $54 million" in the last two years.

$100 million is not chump change, not even to the NRA. According to the article (which was quite thorough), the NRA raised $412 million in 2018. So this would indicate that the $100 million (using this figure) would basically be a 25% loss in revenue estimated to be because of NRA's legal woes. Using 2018 revenue, however, is overly rosy I'm afraid. Their revenue for 2017 was less (about $370 million) and the increase in 2018 was probably a one time bump because of the Parkland Fl shooting that happened early in that year. So if NRA's typical revenue is lower, that would mean the $100 million loss in revenue is an even greater percentage of their annual receipts.

On top of it all, I logged on today and noticed a very recent thread that many of you probably participated in. It linked to the Guns and Gadgets podcast which highlighted the fact that the NRA just furloughed almost everyone (on top of a reduction of 60 personnel back in early March) right before Easter. That email leaked just a few days ago. On top of it, I bet some furloughed staff probably put 2 and 2 together and realized the NRA may be on decent financial footing still were it not for legal fees and the $100 million in reduced revenue attributable to bad publicity. Either staff or a board member had to have leaked this audio recording. I'll link to Mike38's thread too, but I thought recent fresh off the press little tidbit was worth a separate thread all it's own. No wonder the NRA couldn't be bothered to help organize the recent pro-2A activities pushing back against legislation in Virginia... they're too busy tending the internal dumpster fire that is beyond control at this point. It's time for NRA members to stand together and organize to push for Wayne's removal, or to abandon the NRA and coalesce around another 2A organization.

Link to Mike38's thread...
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=606578

 

[mehavey]

Governments (such as Cuomo's) have bottomless pockets to financially
destroy anyone they go after -- innocent or guilty, doesn't matter.

They aren't going after WP.
They're going after the destruction of the 2A concept.

 

[5whiskey]

^Mehavey I will agree with you that New York and D.C. legal cases are hurting the NRA, and that since the government basically is the court system they can litigate for pennies on the dollar.

With that being said, if the NRA didn't have it's own internal squabbles and very real issues, their message about government oppression of the organization would likely resonate better. In other words, if their house was clean they could advertise and likely raise a good bit of money based on the facts of the New York case. I know that I would donate to the cause if it weren't for their internal issues. And I have vocally supported the NRA through most of this, but the past 4 or 5 months things are tougher to swallow. I still am not completely abandoning the NRA, I just want to see a critical mass of membership call for the resignation of Wayne and company. And if they refuse, then I would be a proponent of abandoning the NRA.

 

[LeverGunFan]

Governments (such as Cuomo's) have bottomless pockets to financially
destroy anyone they go after -- innocent or guilty, doesn't matter.

They aren't going after WP.
They're going after the destruction of the 2A concept.

The NY State Attorney General ran for election with a promise to go after the NRA, which would be before she had any access to their financial records. So this investigation would have happened regardless. Shame on NRA if they have done anything to jeopardize their not-for-profit status, but as noted they are going to pay regardless of whether the investigation is justified or not. The investigation was announced a year ago, has there been any solid news on it other than some courtroom wrangling?

 

[TBM900]

The NRA needs to burn to the ground.

 

[Mike38]

$100 Million in lost revenue attributable to the legal troubles they have encountered in the past couple years is not a Covid-19 problem. It's a management problem. It's a Board of Directors problem. It's a Wayne Lapierre problem. But will any of the previously mentioned persons suffer because of this? Nope. NRA members will suffer, and the country will suffer when the Second Amendment gets reduced to nothing. The NRA will collapse, or become a shell of what it once was, no doubt about it. I pray another pro 2nd organization is able to jump in with both feet and take over.

 

[Ignition Override]

What is another strong, well-financed pro-Sec. Amendment (not just FUDDS) who are quite good with lobbying in DC?

What is the next best choice?

 

[sparkyv]

What is another strong, well-financed pro-Sec. Amendment (not just FUDDS) who are quite good with lobbying in DC?

What is the next best choice?

I know not of any with a proven track record. Damned if we don't, wasted resources if we do.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

What is another strong, well-financed pro-Sec. Amendment (not just FUDDS) who are quite good with lobbying in DC?

What is the next best choice?

Strong and well-financed aren't the keys. They help, of course, but what made the NRA [somewhat] successful in lobbying is the fact that the NRA had a huge membership. There aren't a lot of non-governmental groups (other than trade unions) that can boast of having millions of members. And each member has a vote. (Two votes, if the member lives in Chicago.)

There are other pro-2A groups: The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF); Gun Owners of America (GOA); Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO); there are others, but those are the ones I would look to first in the vacuum that would be left if the NRA were to disappear completely.

IMHO it's time to start looking at those groups now. The NRA hasn't disappeared, but LaPierre's agenda at the moment seems to be primarily holding onto his position rather than representing the membership. Life and endowment members aren't donating. Regular members are voting with their feet and simply not renewing. That does two things: First, it reduces the revenues of the NRA. Second, it reduces the membership. I haven't seen any numbers on new memberships and renewals, but my guess is that NRA membership is down significantly compared to two or three years ago. And that's a problem for all of us because it means the NRA isn't the 800-pound gorilla in the room this election cycle. If the NRA doesn't represent millions of votes, politicians don't have to worry about the NRA when they campaign.

In my opinion, we need to immediately start building up the membership numbers in the other major players -- the SAF, GOA, JPFO, and possibly some others. I don't think we all need to send them massive amounts of money (not that they wouldn't welcome it), but just whatever it takes to join, to add your name to the roster, so they can become, if not the 800-pound gorilla, at least a 600-pound gorilla.

One group that I will not support is the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR). I may be wrong, but my impression is and has been for a long time that Dudley Brown runs the NAGR as a personal slush fund, and that the NAGR's pro-gun message is all hot air and little real action. (Sort of like a small-time clone of Wayne LaPierre, in fact.) If that's wrong, then I'm wrong. Don't take my word -- do your own research.

 

[littlebikerider]

I'm in both the SAF and GOA, and state group ISRA. I have told congressmen in letters before that even if NRA goes away, the gun owners are still here - and voting!!

 

[BarryLee]

I fear no group will have the positive impact the NRA has had. Like it or not they are our best shot at protecting our Constitutional Rights. Very few people outside of hardcore firearms enthusiast even know who these other organizations are.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Very few people outside of hardcore firearms enthusiast even know who these other organizations are.

If any of those groups had a membership of 3 million or 5 million gun owners, you can bet the politicians would have heard of them. Most of them probably do know aboout the SAF, because of their pivotal role in some of the recent(-ish), high profile gun rights cases that the good guys won and the gun grabbers lost.

 

[44 AMP]

There aren't a lot of non-governmental groups (other than trade unions) that can boast of having millions of members. And each member has a vote. (Two votes, if the member lives in Chicago.)

This is the real political power of the NRA, and while it may weaken some, its not going away due to squabbles over leadership, or money.

Politician KNOW that in addition to those millions of members who will vote based on NRA recommendations, that there are additional millions of people who are NOT members who will vote the same way, and for the same reasons.

Back in the days of paper letters (to congress, to the editor of the paper, etc.) it was generally assumed a "ten to one" rule. For every ONE person who took the time and effort to write, there were 10 (or more) people who felt the same way and would vote that way, but never bothered to write.

Any of you folks disgusted with the NRA now, and leaving it, are you going to be voting anti-gun just because NOW you're not an NRA member???

How many MILLIONS of wives, friends, co workers, children of NRA members are likely to vote the same way the member does, because while not being paid members they all share similar beliefs?

A 3 million membership who largely vote as a block is a big thing. A 3 million membership who motivates another 12 million friends neighbors relatives and like thinking non members is a BIGGER block.

IT looks like the people running the NRA have been "on watch" too long. It seems that they have, and are squandering our resources on themselves, their cronies, and various sweetheart deals and legal fights when those deals went south.

I would welcome a change of leadership. There is rot, and it should be removed. But the base is still sound and while many have left the membership roles, they are still a resource on our side, and were there other people running the NRA they'd probably "return to the fold" and become paid members again.

The NRA needs to burn to the ground.

I disagree. It doesn't need to burn to the ground, it only needs some diseased branches pruned away.

 

[WyMark]

'lil Wayne will leave when there's no more money left for him to siphon off, and not one day sooner.

 

[BarryLee]

If any of those groups had a membership of 3 million or 5 million gun owners, you can bet the politicians would have heard of them.

Yes, I agree, but do they have that kind of membership? If not they may have a future, but the battle is now.

 

[Nathan]

This is simple. The NRA faced legal challenges before. The furlough is eye candy.
All big business is doing it unless they are making ventilators or masks....why? Because the government made it a better deal for employers and employees to be furloughed. Unemployment sucks. Unemployment plus $600/wk is a life dream for most 20-30 somethings. It is only us wise old coots that realize the act of bringing manpower back will require 2 things....a check to the buddy system...buddies come back first. Then a check to the bottom line. With each person, management will be asking, do they pay their way? If you were the guy who worked from home 3 days a week to sleep in, surfed Facebook all day on your phone, or worse, were effective, but unnoticed.....you are likely never coming back.

So, furloughing is just the “in” thing to do now.

The legal challenges will cost money until power is restored to the NRA.

Power cannot be restored until Wayne and his chrony’s are out. The problem is they seized power at every turn after Cincinnati and pretty much have to voluntarily give it up. This will only happen if a new power organization can form within or outside the NRA. The future is bleak. Nobody is leading the charge for change...with any money.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Yes, I agree, but do they have that kind of membership? If not they may have a future, but the battle is now.

Do they have that kind of membership? Not today. That was my point. If all of us who are unhappy with Wayne LaPierre and the current NRA board of directors want some other organization to be able to step up to replace the NRA, we're going to have to ensure that those other groups have that kind of membership volume. Those who are withholding donations to the NRA or not renewing their NRA membership ... use that money to join GOA and/or the SAF. You don't have to donate thousands of dollars to be a member -- just send whatever they consider as membership dues, and their roster grows. If we all do this, their rosters will grow a lot.

If GOA (for example) saw their membership double between now and the end of May, you can bet they'd be vocal about it, and you can bet that the politicians in Washington will know about it.

 

[thallub]

Thanks for the update.

Yep, in the most recent American Rifleman magazine, Wayne says he is sending out a missal of great importance to all members.

"My fellow NRA Members:

As a result of the unprecedented crisis now facing America and the world, I have been forced to make drastic changes in NRA operations during these past few weeks.

There are two separate organizations:

1. The National Rifle Association

2. The National Rifle Foundation, a tax exempt entity

https://www.nrafoundation.org/ways-of-giving/


In addition to investigating malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance (AKA: general doofussness) by the NRA board; NY AG James is also investigating the possible illegal transfer of tax exempt NRA Foundation funds to the NRA political wing.

NY AG James was successful in dissolving the Trump Foundation.

The NRA Foundation is chartered in Washington, DC. The DC AG is also investigating the possible illegal transfer of funds from the NRA Foundation.

Racine explained the investigation is being conducted because "protecting charitable organizations and their assets in the District" was the responsibility of the office of the attorney general. He further stated that they "can bring court actions to dissolve, or place in receivership, a nonprofit corporation that misuses funds or acts contrary to its nonprofit purposes."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dc-attorney-general-subpoenas-nra-as-part-of-investigation

 

[TDL]

The power of the NRA is it membership numbers. And the uptake of those derives in very good part from its training program.

The other organizations do not have that and will be severely limited in power for the foreseeable future. GOA sending "a million emails" the the Senate by getting 10,000 people to enter their name and address and computer generating emails to 100 senators is meaningless when 98% of the emails that senators are getting are from out of state residents who are not constituents.

I have sat in congressional office as a staffer when groups akin to NRA and it size, bring in five local and verifiable constituents come in and articulate. "A million emails!!" is frankly laughable in that it is akin to the Austin powers' line with the demand for "one MILLION dollars!"

GOA has also kind of a nasty rep in DC for attacking GOP reps in purple or going purple districts instead of attacking their gen election opponents. Is it smart to ballyoo the position of say a GOP incumbent in a district where the GOP runs 30% points ahead in elections, and attack position of some incumbent who is defending a district by the skin of their teeth for not having exact same position on red flag?*

There are two separate organizations:
1. The National Rifle Association
2. The National Rifle Foundation, a tax exempt entity
https://www.nrafoundation.org/ways-of-giving/
In addition to investigating malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance (AKA: general doofussness) by the NRA board; NY AG James is also investigating the possible illegal transfer of tax exempt NRA Foundation funds to the NRA political wing

Excuse me, but both of your examples are of a "tax exempt entity." both (c)3 and (c) are "not-for-profit" designations and tax exempt. Donations to (c)3 are generally also tax deductible while your c(4) dues are not.

Also NRA has more than two, it has ILA (legislation direct lobbying), a "civil rights foundation" c3 and others, and having two to ten organisations types under a brand umbrella is common for good reason.

So I think we want to be careful to put that in perspective. I worked with a large national membership association specifically in "public affairs" (issues advocacy) with national chapters and an HQ in DC and fair presence and advocacy interest in Washington for years. (nothing to do with gun control issues).

there is no really term "Political" in the IRS or FEC controlling code. An charity can be in essence 100% political in a broad sense of policy advocacy and be fine. You can have a c3 charity entirely devoted to generally expanding government's role education, health care etc . It is more about limits on a) electioneering, and b) limits on resources spent on specific legislation lobbying (and the latter case are not prohibitions but limits). And what most people think is lobbying in terms of promoting issues to elected officials is often not lobbying and not limited at all.

A c3 charity foundation being against gun violence and for gun control and devoting all its funds to it is NOT illegal. generally it is the proportion of resources they spend having staff going into legislators' offices to argue for or against a specific piece of legislation that is the test. Training rank and file members to go in to argue for legislation can be done as educational work and is often not lobbying. And even where limited, such as staff arguing for legislation, it is a limit on certain proportions of resources, not prohibition

It is typical for large organisations to have five or six associated organizations, say a c4 or two, several c3s, foundations, pacs that are actually pacs (poltical action committes) , pacs called pacs in their name, that are not actually pacs (public affairs committees), etc.

And it is the rule, not the exception, to maximize -- right up to the line of IRS and FEC enforcement -- uses of resources. it is also very common to share location, office space, equipment, and of even some employees, who are working for C4 part of the day and c3 another part of the day.

From what I have read of the NRA, where they are an outlier is not what they were doing, but getting caught due to:
a) politically motivated increased enforcement scrutiny that would get a LOT of organizations, including our adversaries, in trouble; and
b) targeted by groups such as Kendeda's "gunsdownamerica" which was set up and strongly funded and professionally staffed specifically to reduce NRA funding. Once you are seeing funding channels dry up, the organization experiences finacial stress and this often results in more risk of making a mistake that puts you under IRS scrutiny.
c) moving actual money between, which is often legal and often not, but which is high risk, and can certainly flag you to the IRS, resulting in fines, loss of c3 or c4-c10 status, and maybe get you thrown in prison for conspiracy.

So a good deal of this is people being, to quote the line from casablanca, "shocked, shocked to find out" something untoward was happening, when in the bordello/sausage factory that is DC, no one was shocked.

But in the main the core dysfunction at the NRA was the hiring of an outside group that either was a) essentially blackmailing/bribing the members of the board tasked to oversight or b) visa versa, and some members of the board with oversight were forcing the outside management to do things it shouldn't, depending on whose claims you believe.

Hiring outside groups is common. It is not strange to see membership groups, associations, c4s and c3s even to have 5% or 90% of their operations handled by an outside management company. Having them start with communications, or "development" (fundraising) is common. There are specialized companies that are expert at grant writing (getting money from other charities, government) and/or selling brand name t-shirts to members. The former can be real experts you would not have in your employ, the latter can be off the shelf operations in making t-shirt, pens, whatever, and handling all aspects of marketing to members. Again very common.
Same with lobbying, membership drive campaigns, communications to members (newsletters and magazines (and the advertising sales) websites, etc) from production, to production and content creation. "Advocacy" and lobbying as well can be done by outside groups. in some cases all of that is done by a single outside general management group, where essentially 90% of the labor for an association might be being done.

the problem is say if they are in communications, they can be rewarding or promoting members of the hiring organization's oversight personnel, say on the board, helping them get elected in exchange for more work. Or the the oversight members cna be forcing the outside company to divert resources to them.

The main thing I see from reading about hte mess at NRA was that the NRA-TV operation, handled by an outside group may have developed into an outright slush fund. Having NRA TV as well as operations where people speaking in favor of the NRA and its message at arms length is OK in itself. It is smart to do in many cases. Again in the example of gun control funder Kendeda, they funded several NPR stations million and millions of dollars to give "mid-career" grants to reporters for many different non-NPR news outlets, working on gun control beat. When you look at the blurbs on the reporters stories they say something like "expert from the "Guns and America project" and never say the reporter is getting cash from a major player in gun control/gun ban advocacy, some might say laundered through several t NPR stations
It is often perfectly legal and a good tactic. But a slush fund is not.

I think for those of us who have supported the NRA, the developments are sad and disappointing. But I also think we have to parse, tease out the fact that a) a huge portion of what NRA is taking a beating on, including in the gun owning community, are legal and common tactics even if they seem bad are not bad in the context of washington, and, b) that any group targeted, including politically motivated targets, is going to see dirty laundry aired; and c) some of this is structural and longstanding problems at NRA that are unethical acts by individuals at the NRA.

I think we also need to parse this from complaints over positions, half the people I talk to think NRA is too soft and half think it is too hardline (and this is also not the exception, but the RULE for most issues advocacy groups' members). As well as complains over being nagged for money, presented with too many third party offers for merchandise etc, also common.

Lastly where is the evidence from, for example, GOA structure (with its charity GOF), charter etc that it is not susceptible to same structural issues and attacks on it, if, and when, it becomes relevant?

*I do NOT support red flag, but even if the polling is way off, it still polls more support than any gun control measure.

 

[TDL]

What is another strong, well-financed pro-Sec. Amendment (not just FUDDS) who are quite good with lobbying in DC?
What is the next best choice

None, not a one. It will take decades to come near to a fraction of the power, massively favorable views by the public, and reach of the NRA. And if any group does ever come close it will be as mercilessly attacked.

And what drove the gun control/ban advocacy groups nuts was the fact that NRA, had, up until just a couple of years years ago, majority 56%-54% favorables among ALL Americans in gallup surveys. I would bet that not even 0.56% of Americans know any other group at all.

In fact gallup favorables in 2018 were 88% of Republicans and 24% of Democrats viewing NRA favorably. https://news.gallup.com/poll/236315/record-partisan-divide-views-nra.aspx

NRA is now at 48% favorable, near to 40% trough after the the sustained attack it took 15 years ago. We either fix the NRA or wait 20 years for something to get even 1/4 it strength.

NRA has its classes spread out all over the US, which bring in a very large number of memberships. Even if some of those people go on and off and on and off the paid membership roles they are an inherent massive membership poo, which an alternate group hanging a strictly lobbying shingle out could never expect to approach. I would argue if we don't have an NRA NONE of the other membership groups would have more than a few thousands people, since SAF supporters, and GOA members are virtually all people initially activated on the issue by NRA. There are probably more kids who went through the NRA youth hunter education program in the last ten years than the total membership of alternate groups.

If the NRA goes down the tube, those other groups won't "step in," they likely will see reduced membership as well due to lack of initial point of contact on the issue.

NRA is not just huge in the context of firearms rights advocacy, it is a stunningly huge and well recognized and well liked group in the context of all membership or advocacy groups in the USA.

For perspective it 50x larger than the 60,000 member American Bar Association. It is near 10x larger than sierra club.

We here on such a forum have a cognitive bias, in that the membership of this forurm, tiny but active, knows of the other groups. We are NOT the average gun owner.