Why buisiness & Insurance are dropping NRA affiliation

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    There are now about 70 separate gun control lobby groups, virtually all 501c3. It has become so big that there is in fact even a multi million dollar per year organization whose sole activity is to force companies to break any relationship with the NRA.

    Here is the organization:
    https://gunsdownamerica.org/

    Here its founding "charitable" foundation. It is home depot founder's former wife and daughter, which among the ~$50 million or so it spends on gun control adovacy funs this ~$5 million effort to get companies to denounce the NRA:
    https://kendedafund.org/grantee/coordinating-strategies-reduce-gun-violence-2/

    This foundation's ~$50 million per year is not even in the top five of foundations pushing gun control. by my calculations NRA is now outspent about 20:1-- about 90% of the anti second amendment adovacy being 501(c)3 charitable founding.

    In fact there is another 501(c)3 whose only activity is to help gun control adovacy groups move as much spending to 501(c)3 eligible spending!

    Adovacy of gun control is the PERFECT way to play partisan politics since it allows driving hundred of millions into adovacy and lobbying yet doing virtually all of it with charitable (ie deductible) spending. giving is also opaque. People complain about Citizens United type money -- none of that is tax deductible and it all has to be filed with the FEC and fully available to the public in terms of disclosure. This gun control money is huge and virtually completely hidden form easy discovery.
     

    TheBert

    The Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 10, 2013
    7,687
    Gaithersburg, Maryland
    Businesses exist to make money for their owners. Businesses don't exist to push enumerated or implied rights. When a business sees that its business may be adversely affected it, the business, is obligated to address the issue to the benefit of the business.
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    Businesses exist to make money for their owners. Businesses don't exist to push enumerated or implied rights. When a business sees that its business may be adversely affected it, the business, is obligated to address the issue to the benefit of the business.

    Agreed. I think they're making the business calculation wrong (the liberal whiners are not the ones who are going to spend money at any of these places regardless, and civil right supporters will vote with their wallets), but that is still why they're doing it.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    Agreed. I think they're making the business calculation wrong (the liberal whiners are not the ones who are going to spend money at any of these places regardless, and civil right supporters will vote with their wallets), but that is still why they're doing it.

    The points are
    • it an externality to the normal business/market environment it is not organic like other boycotts/divestment.
    • it also goes to a huge and growing disproportionality in NRA vs gun control lobby/adovacy spending that is easily 20:1 against the NRA now.
    • The money spent on this is 501c3. looking at NRA and its various structures they appear to be 7% 501c3, whereas the gun control lobby is over 90%.

    No one is saying businesses can't do as they please.
    The point is the gun control lobby has created an artificiality not before present that we sould be aware of.

    When you see NRA spending compared to gun control lobby spending NONE of this increasing giving to proliferating 501c3 "charity" gun control adovacy is counted.

    Additionally the WAMU(our DC regional NPR)program to "train" working mid career journalists on gun control with another $5 million from the gun control lobby is something that is very much outside normal practices in journalism for ethical reasons
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    Businesses exist to make money for their owners. Businesses don't exist to push enumerated or implied rights. When a business sees that its business may be adversely affected it, the business, is obligated to address the issue to the benefit of the business.

    I am not talking about business ultimate decisions, I am talking about massive amounts of "charitable" funding going to advocacy against the Second Amendment.
     

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,735
    People complain about Citizens United type money -- [when it's spent against their candidate] none of that is tax deductible and it all has to be filed with the FEC and fully available to the public in terms of disclosure. This gun control money is huge and virtually completely hidden form easy discovery.

    Fixed that for you.

    Most people I've talked to, or seen online, don't actually hate money spent on politics. They hate money spent on politics that oppose their candidate. For example, many Democrats are fine with labor unions making unlimited contributions because they support labor unions, but businesses should not be allowed to contribute. Visa Versa also holds true.
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    Fixed that for you.

    Most people I've talked to, or seen online, don't actually hate money spent on politics. They hate money spent on politics that oppose their candidate. For example, many Democrats are fine with labor unions making unlimited contributions because they support labor unions, but businesses should not be allowed to contribute. Visa Versa also holds true.

    Really thanks but you didn't fix it for me. I don't care who spends, how much, or on what. I have no problem with unions or left wing gibing all the money they want as long as it is not charitable and not hidden.

    I care about: a) transparency and b) abuse of tax status in campaigning, formal lobbying/informal lobbying and issues adovacy that is patently poltical.

    money facilitated by citizens united is 100% transparent, The citizens united decision only relates to money that is fully reported to the FEC. there isn a nickel of funding through that mechanism that you and I cant see with 5 seconds of typing on phones. Same with union giving. you can see it in seconds and union dues are not tax deductible either.

    The massive increase in gun control groups and funding of them and spending by them is both largely opaque, and is about driving 501(c)3 charitable, fully tax deductible funding, normally utterly excluded from politics into politics.

    Th gun control lobby is raising money 10:1 maybe 20:1 as "charity". NRA spending not only is a fraction of the gun control lobby in net -- it is also at most 10%, and probably 5% charitably funded (NRA civil rights fund) -- an inversion of the ratio on the other side.


    NRA Civil Rights fund is $700,000. I gave an example of two charitable donations, by a single foundation, totaling $10 million, and who's giving to gun control "charities" looks to be $50 million this year. and that foundation is not in the top 5 of gun control funders.


    Democrats have discovered a partisan poltical issue in gun control with which the they can drive hundreds of millions a year in as charitable giving and for the most part also not at all transparent. it beats the heck out of old methods such as non deductible 527s.


    If you want to learn more about this generally throw in this podcast next time you have an hour drive or sitting time:
    https://www.aspeninstitute.org/podcasts/big-philanthropy-threaten-democracy/

    foundation "philanthropic" giving has gone from a tiny proportion of poltical adovacy to what some think is the largest poltical advoacy spending sector there is, and it is profoundly opaque and in terms of taxes more than 70% subsidized by you and I
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    if you want to get a sense of this look at wikipedia's page on the "NRA boycott"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_NRA_boycott

    Notice nowhere in that huge article written utterly one sided, is even a single mention that the entire thing is professionally run by about 30 PR and social media professionals (many of who worked with DNC or democrat campaigns/office holders) working a ~ $5 million dollar grant solely to create. grow and spin this business "boycott" of the NRa.

    You would think the entire thing is organic when it utterly the opposite and s a slick, professional and massive AstroTurf operation.
     

    hillbilly grandpa

    Active Member
    Jan 26, 2013
    962
    Arnold
    if you want to get a sense of this look at wikipedia's page on the "NRA boycott"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_NRA_boycott

    Notice nowhere in that huge article written utterly one sided, is even a single mention that the entire thing is professionally run by about 30 PR and social media professionals (many of who worked with DNC or democrat campaigns/office holders) working a ~ $5 million dollar grant solely to create. grow and spin this business "boycott" of the NRa.

    You would think the entire thing is organic when it utterly the opposite and s a slick, professional and massive AstroTurf operation.

    Important intel on the Wikipediacontent. Suggestion: Why don't you and/or others well versed on this matter add content to the W article. I believe it is possible to do so. Providing references for the new content is also very helpful. Let us know how this project progresses.
     

    Adolph Oliver Bush

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 13, 2015
    1,940
    From the IRS webpage:

    https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-p...-purposes-internal-revenue-code-section-501c3


    The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.




    Anybody see anywhere where opposing constitutionally-enumerated rights or other lawful actions are covered? Let me pen an email to the head of the IRS and express my displeasure. Why I am I being forced to subsidize the attack on my own rights?
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    From the IRS webpage:

    https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-p...-purposes-internal-revenue-code-section-501c3

    The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
    Anybody see anywhere where opposing constitutionally-enumerated rights or other lawful actions are covered? Let me pen an email to the head of the IRS and express my displeasure. Why I am I being forced to subsidize the attack on my own rights?

    Did you miss the health care debate where hundreds of millions in adovacy was was c3?You are leaving out the case law. As long as it is not the paid personnel themselves arguing specific legislation to members of congress and their staff it is not lobbying (and charities are allowed to do that kind of lobbying to a degree anyway). And educational can easily mean pretty much 80% of what the gun control lobby does.

    it is a scandal yes, but one that they can get away with
     

    rascal

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 15, 2013
    1,253
    Important intel on the Wikipediacontent. Suggestion: Why don't you and/or others well versed on this matter add content to the W article. I believe it is possible to do so. Providing references for the new content is also very helpful. Let us know how this project progresses.

    I have other ongoing Wikipedia presence including support for second amendment. That NRA boycott article has 20 major editors and not one secondi amendment supporter, and the first one who does is going to have their entire history on Wikipedia revised and attacked. it would require a coordinated action by a couple dozen pro second amendment editors.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,928
    Messages
    7,259,402
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom