NY AG sues NRA alleging massive fraud

Great Debates
242

It’s their business because if an organization is incorporated as a non-profit they are bound by the laws regulating non-profits. The State of NY has given them tax-exempt status and they have an interest in seeing that they follow the laws and regulations that come with that status.

The board can vote to change the bylaws and the mission, but only to the extent that the laws allow. If the law prohibits proxy voting by directors, you can’t amend the bylaws to allow it. You can adjust the mission statement but only as long as the mission remains in accordance with the laws governing non-profits.

Those laws typically forbid excessive officer perks (like chartering jets instead of flying commercial) and self-dealing, like hiring consulting firms you have a stake in. The feeling of the membership don’t matter. It’s kind of flip and probably untrue for you to say categorically that they don’t care but it’s irrelevant. People that donate to non-profits need to be able to do so with confidence that their hard-earned dollars will be used towards the organization’s stated mission rather than for the personal enrichment of its officers.

So the answer to your question is that the AG is protecting the citizens of New York from what is in effect, consumer fraud. If give 100 bucks to an organization for them to use to lobby for my 2nd Amendment rights, and they use that money to take their family on vacation, they’ve ripped me off. It’s a crime, just like it would be if they sold me VCR for $100 and gave me a VCR case with a brick inside.

The Trump Inaugural Committee is being sued by DC for violating non-profit regulations by paying full price plus some to the Trump Organization for hosting the events. They actually had a legal obligation to negotiate a price commensurate with what the organization charged other non-profits for similar events instead of paying 10x to 20x more. Even though all the donors might have been onboard with the idea that the primary purpose of their donations to the Inaugural Committee was the personal enrichment of Donald J Trump, they aren’t allowed to do that if they are a non-profit

I find it mind-blowing that you are allegedly on the board of a non-profit and you believe that you and the board have the right to spend the money in any way you want as long as you vote on it. That is totally, completely and utterly WRONG and it reflects a staggering ignorance of what a non-profit is and how it works.

I’m not surprised though. One thing I’ve learned in the past few weeks is that grift has become so internalized and normalized within the conservative movement that it’s become the status quo. If you’re a conservative, you’re either a predator or a mark. The next thing you know, mainstream conservative politicians will be using their political positions and mailing list to hawk scam snake oil cancer cures.

Whoops, they already have. Why am I not surprised?

ETA: I’m a liberal but one with a libertarian streak. I own a gun and I intend to keep owning one. But scammers really piss me off.

243

And, preemptively- don’t start in with “both sides do it”.

We are almost 4 years into a Republican administration. I can guarantee that prosecutors and regulators have poured through the records of the Clinton Foundation and Planned Parenthood and their other boogeymen looking for fraud and I haven’t heard any reporting that hints at them finding anything.

244

The New York Attorney General is charged with overseeing the use of CHARITABLE ASSETS. These assets don’t belong just to the leadership, or to the current members; the leadership acts as trustee for institutional funds that have been accumulated since 1871. When they fail in their duty as trustees, and the current members are unwilling or unable to do anything about it, the AG’s office has a legal obligation to step in.

They have FIVE objectives/purposes listed on their website, none of which are “primary” to the others. (And individuals can join shooting clubs, associations, or other organizations that belong to the NSSF; they can also join the Gun Owners of America or other lobbying groups, so stop pretending otherwise.)

I suggest you get yourself to an attorney who can explain the responsibilities incumbent upon a trustee of a non-profit, before you get yourself in some SERIOUS legal trouble. You are obligated to spend the organization’s money in line with the organization’s by-laws. The NRA has by-laws that set forth their purposes; the membership can revise those by following the procedures set forth in those same by-laws; no, the board can’t simply “decide” to do something else with the money.

The AG is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to oversee the trustees of charitable assets. The NRA leadership are trustees of charitable assets. No, this is not simply a matter for the membership, no matter how much you want to believe that.

245

They absolutely have a primary purpose and I’ve cited it. You keep posting this as if there’s a pie chart where all the objectives are divided equally. This is beyond nonsense.

246

Many of the trustees in my organization are Lawyers. We’re also well represented in the business world by Accountants or other professionals who do, in fact, understand the tax laws as well as the organization’s by-laws . We go over the books at every meeting.

You don’t seem to understand, the trustees create and modify the bylaws. We have had to alter planned expenditures to fall within the by-laws we ourselves created for the purpose of maintaining good financial health.

The NY AG isn’t going after the trustees , she’s going after the entire organization. And therein lies the problem. Her opinion of the organization’s legal efforts toward legislation in the state of New York is personal and not professional. This makes the lawsuit political. She’s punishing the organization for it’s challenge of NY gun laws.

247

Maybe I’m lost in this conversation, but I’m not clear what your point is about the five objectives. Are you suggesting that an NPO could get in legal trouble for failing to sufficiently pursue some of its objectives in order to focus on others? I would really want to see a citation of New York law on that point.

Obviously favouring some objectives over others is different from using the NPO’s funds to enrich its leadership. That’s what the NRA is actually in trouble for.

248

This never happened.

249

If he’s using is usual super-secret known only to him definitions, then just maybe, in his mind, it did.

250

post 219.

251

Sorry, you keep trying so say that 5 = 1 Macgiver, but we’re not buying it. You keep defining the first purpose and objective of the NRA as it’s only, or primary one, but not one single thing on the page you cited states it’s the primary or most important, merely the first in the list. And your argument that the first point is required to maintain the other four has been very clearly refuted upthread.

252

I’'ve never said it was a singular goal. I’ve said it was their primary goal and I’ve backed it up with a cite showing the majority of funds collected go toward that goal.

Again, from their own website](Age Verification - NRA):

While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America’s foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the NRA has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly five million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs.

So to summarize, their stated goals and expenditures focus on 2nd Amendment support. There’s nothing subtle or secretive about what they do.

Any legal issues with the officers of the NRA are just that. They’re legal issues with those individuals and not the organization and it’s members.

253

The Supreme Court is the first and foremost defender of 2nd amendment rights. They are the ultimate and most legitimate defender of the Constitution and all the rights within, of which the 2nd is one.

IANAL, but the legal action is not being taken against you or any other NRA individual members.

254

A corporation is functionally considered to be a person. In this sense the NRA is a ‘legal person’. That person of the NRA is what is being sued. Individual officers of the NRA may also be pursued criminally.

A corporation is a legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. 1 Corporations enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that individuals possess: they can enter contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets, and pay taxes. Some refer to it as a "legal person."Apr 24, 2020

[image]

https://www.investopedia.com › terms

Corporation Definition - Investopedia

255

I would be very surprised to find that the Trustees can actually make Bye-Laws of such an over arching nature. I’d expect some ability to modify quorum, voting and some parts of conference laws could be given more clarity.

However you would think that the Trustees are accountable to the membership and would not be able to make policy amendments without reference back to membership.

There are always some aspects of policy that are proposed that may appear to have some merit but need refinement and this is usually done by the Trustees but they would still have to report back on their activities.

256

Wrong again; there’s no “primary” in that link.

257

If anyone is interested in actual revenue and spending, their 2018 990 is here:

Schedule C starts on p 26.

258

Tl;dr:
$4.3M spent on lobbying out of $353M of revenue.

259

So, it sounds like the NRA doesn’t think that their primary purpose is to lobby for the second amendment either.

They spend $7,798,658 on fundraising, about twice as they do on lobbying.

$63,864,842 on salaries. $8,472,207 on travel.

Sounds like, with a bit more than 1% of their revenue going for lobbying, their efforts there are priority 1,367,835. Basically a rounding error on their funneling into their own pocket.

260

To be fair, one can “advocate” without necessarily lobbying, which is more strictly defined.

261

They cannot do so willy-nilly; any modification must be done in accordance with the provisions of the bylaws themselves and in the context of the certificate of incorporation (which requires a vote of the MEMBERSHIP, not the Board, to modify). The certificate of incorporation sets forth the purposes and objectives as well, and New York law controls how far they can deviate from those purposes. Have you read them?

No, we got on the “five objectives” business because several posters, notably Magiver, kept insisting that their only purpose was defending the Second Amendment, and the discussion that began in #159 about the AG’s request that the NRA’s assets be redistributed to other groups consistent with the purposes of the NRA’s certificate of incorporation, which includes multiple purposes and for which Second Amendment advocacy was a late addition.