You made the assertion; you back it up. Or withdraw it. Your choice.
You could do some research, like I just did. Here’s an opinion piece from 2019 (note: opinion, but with cites) from the Gotham Gazette that says:
Under the state’s Business Corporation Law—the modern version of a long-standing legal procedure with a rich history tracing back to the medieval English “writ of quo warranto” —Attorney General James can file a lawsuit in state court to dissolve a corporation, such as the Trump Organization, that is incorporated in New York. The test is whether the company “has exceeded the authority conferred upon it by law,…or carried on, conducted or transacted its business in a persistently fraudulent or illegal manner, or by the abuse of its powers contrary to the public policy of the state has become liable to be dissolved.” (This is a cousin of the separate legal provision under which the New York Attorney General successfully sued to dissolve the Trump Foundation.)
This type of lawsuit to dissolve a corporation isn’t common, but it isn’t rare either. Right now, Attorney General James is in the middle of a dissolution case against a credit card equipment leasing company, and just last year her office won another dissolution order against a different company.
There are links to two additional dissolution cases recently filed by the NY AG in there, so that’s four cases in the last couple of years cited so far.
Great question! I searched for “New York Shuts Down Charity -Trump” and got:
United Homeless Organization
Breast Cancer Survivors Foundation
Cancer Fund of America
VietNow National Headquarters
Children’s Cancer Fund of America
and more, but I trust that makes the point.
So, clearly this is a remedy available to AGs, and used by AGs, including NY’s AG, when a charity is really really corrupt. I’m not thoroughly convinced that the NRA meets those standards, but only because I haven’t heard their side of the story: the case against them, both in the complaint and in the reporting, is really damning.
This type of lawsuit to dissolve a corporation isn’t common,
My uncle who owned guns for hunting, reaction, and protection always told me the NRA was nothing but scum. They didn’t give a shit about anyones’ rights, it was all about the $$$$$$. In fact, if they could make it supporting gun control, they’d do it in an instant.
Why anyone continues to support them is beyond me. They don’t care about your average gun owner, it’s all about the gun manufactorers.
Whether this is a good idea or not, the NRA are just a bunch of crooks. If you want to support them, go ahead, but don’t kid yourself.
Cite?
Right there in ShadowFacts post which I replied to.
cite?
So what? Is that a reason not to take action if there’s a reason?
Why ask me? ask Snowboarder Bo who seemed to think it super important.
Since the AG of New York made this as one of her expressed election goals, it is hard to believe there isnt some politcal points being made here.
Exactly. Who gives a fuck if it makes right wingers angry. Right wingers get angry when you say ‘happy holidays’. They get angry when you point out that their racism is racist. Putting aside the other crimes the NRA is accused of, the NRA is likely used to funnel illegal Russian money to the GOP. The democrats need to stop being pussies and being afraid that angry white people will be mad at them and start fighting dirty. Angry white conservatives will be mad no matter what you do, so do something effective.
If the Attorney General makes a campaign promise to uphold the law to the best of her ability, then proceeds to try to do so, are her attempts political in nature?
I would like to make a point about the use of “non-profit” and “charity” in this thread as it relates to the NRA. The NRA is a “non-profit”, but it is a 501c4 “social welfare organization” and not a 501c3 “charity”. There is an NRA Foundation that is a 501c3 charity, but it is generally committed to the advancement of amateur sporting events, because that is the only charitable purpose allowed within the general cause of the NRA, and 510c3 charities are not allowed to do political lobbying on the state or federal level (there are carve-outs that allow charities to lobby local governments on less policy-based issues). Donations to 501c4s are not tax-deductible.
Incidentally, although the linked article in the OP is about the fraud within main NRA organization, there is also a very recent action that has been taken against the NRA Foundation by the DC AG, accusing it of funneling charity money to the political arm of the organization. That is not what the OP is about, but it’s probably related - the NRA has a lot of financial issues.
Missed edit window to add: In general, contributions that are allowed as a charitable contribution are not allowed to go towards the lobbying for federal and state legislation. Similarly, lobbying expenditures and similar types of expenses to influence the government made by for-profit companies are not deductible expenses. There’s a very clear indication that money that is intended to influence government activities gets no favored tax treatment.
what is your point with this question?
To point out that, for a very good reason, the answer to your question is “probably not, unless you’ve got evidence to the contrary, or a damn good reason why this case shouldn’t be pursued”.
I didnt ask a question. So your “answer” makes no sense at all.
Participate fully or I will ignore your “questions”.
I’m sorry, I meant “your statement”, and my point still stands.
Yeah, she is trying to score political points by being good at her job and taking down a corrupt organization. With that, I agree.
The rest of it is just aspersions on her for her party affiliation. Is any time a democratic law enforcement prosecutes a conservative affiliated organization going to be considered to be a political attack now?
Are conservative leaning organizations immune from investigation and prosecution while a democrat is in office?
Why not just let the facts of the case come out, and judge it on its merits, rather than prejudging it based on nothing more than political affiliation.
Public Advocate Letitia James said Thursday she’d investigate the National Rifle Association’s not-for-profit status in New York if she’s elected state attorney general.
“I will use the constitutional power as an attorney general to regulate charities, that includes the NRA, to investigate their legitimacy,” James said at a Harlem press conference where she outlined an anti-gun violence platform.
And that just goes to my point. You are absolutely correct that it is political, in that she is fulfilling her campaign promises, and if that is all you are saying then we are in agreement.
However, I got the impression that you were implying that this was partisan. If that is the case, you have not presented a persuasive argument to that effect. If that is not the case, then I apologize for my assumption.
When the president of an organization leaves while all sides are publicly screaming that fraud is being done by someone or someone else, then investigating that mess is an obligation, not an option.
The only way in which this is partisan is that a conservative leaning AG would probably ignore it and allow the blatant and obvious fraudulent activity to continue.