Among other things, civil charges are much easier to prove and therefore consume less public taxpayer funded resources.
And the AG specifically said that criminal charges were possible. I suspect they have lots of discovery to do.
Got it, thanks; you were very clear (twice now!) That’s all failure-to-read on my end.
I never said or implied that, by any fair reading of my posts. I’ve never commented on the substance of the complaint, other than the utterly innocuous observation that I do not know whether those allegations are true or not. In fact, my very first post acknowledges that a political motivation does not necessarily preclude a meritorious case.
Maybe the lack of clarity is that when you say “Obviously politically motivated,” it sounds like you’re saying that’s the main motivation for the case. If you’re saying that for some definitions of “political,” (e.g., when an elected official seeks to accomplish a goal they spoke about in their election campaign) a political motivation is part of the motivation for the case, that’s something I’m sure everyone would concede; it’s so trivially true that it barely merits mention.
But my first reading of what you wrote is that it’s obvious that the primary motive of pursuing this case is to gain political advantage for future elections, and that a genuine desire to pursue justice according to the law was not the primary motivation. If that’s not what you meant, I read what you wrote incorrectly.
The NRA is an organization of individuals intent on preserving their 2nd amendment rights. If some of the operating officers are mismanaging the money then that’s the concern of the members. If any laws are broken it falls on the organization to make restitution.
There is no premise for destroying the organization and that makes it politically motivated.
What an astonishing claim. Do you have the legal argument to back that up? Because I believe the NY Attorney General is unlikely to file an action for which there’s no legal support. But perhaps you’re correct; I anxiously await the evidence that leads you to make such a strong claim.
I expect in the end there will be a compromise, in which LaPierre and his supporters leave the leadership and someone else steps in and reorganizes it. That seems far more likely than shutting down the entire group. Perhaps the group returns to its roots, of teaching shooting sports and de-emphasizes the whole political lobbying part.
A “compromise” in which the group abandons the political position it has held for over 40 years wouldn’t do much to quiet claims that the NY Attorney General’s case is politically motivated.
Does it matter if the case is politically motivated if at the same time, it’s valid? Because it does appear that is the case.
It certainly matters if you want to avoid political consequences.
If you want to set the precedent that if an attorney general can find something on a political group he or she disagrees with–I mean, genuinely find something–then it’s OK for that official to sue that group, not just to rectify its problems, but also to force that group to change its political positions, then sure–go right ahead.
A compromise like this seems possible–but I hope that criminal charges are pursued as ardently as they’d be pursued against a street-level heroin dealer. This sort of white collar crime is unconscionable and should be dealt with very strictly.
But I’d be very surprised if any part of any sort of plea or consent deal required changing the organization’s mission, formally or otherwise: to do so would seem a pretty clear first amendment violation.
I may think their second amendment lobbying is grotesque nonsense based on a tortured reading of an outdated constitution; but I certainly don’t oppose their right to espouse such wrongheaded beliefs.
I wasn’t suggesting that the change in mission would be required by any sort of settlement, but that a new regime might voluntarily choose to redirect the group. One reason is that it’s been financially weakened by the graft and will be further weakened as it defends itself. So it won’t have the resources for the lobbying and political contributions it’s made in the past. In fact, I believe it’s been relatively quiet in this election cycle.
Ah, I see what you’re saying. I suppose it’s possible, but a voluntary redirection to the group seems pretty unlikely to me. (but still far likelier than the idea that there’s no legal basis for the AG’s proposed remedy).
Yes, the 1st Amendment. The members of the NRA are entitled to free speech.
Does the first amendment mean that “destroying the organization” is always a legal remedy without premise? In all the other cases mentioned earlier in the thread where other nonprofits faced a similar fate for their fraudulent behavior, was the first amendment violated?
If so, did it just not occur to their attorneys that the first amendment was violated, or did they raise that issue at trial?
So, are you saying that no matter what illegal actions an organization takes the organization cannot be disbanded because they have a right to free speech?
Maybe you are right. But the government can (in theory) throw many of their leadership in prison and fine them sufficiently to bankrupt them but I guess they could reform if they wanted to with a new crowd and if someone is willing to payoff all of their fines and debts.
I can predict now the the NY AG will not destroy the NRA. Even if she wins, they will just incorporate in another state, their tax exemption come from the IRS, not NY. I doubt if she will even do that much. I also doubt she will convict either guy.
Being organized as a corporation, especially a corporation exempt from both state and federal taxes, comes with rights, privileges, and responsibilities, and those responsibilities are not just to their membership but to the jurisdiction as a whole.
The argument here is that it’s NOT “a few top officers committing fraud and defalcation.” Instead of a few rogue employees stealing from their employer, it’s an entire organization perverted, to the extent that members who try to reform it or guide it back to non-criminal paths are themselves forced out (cf. Ollie North) instead. Obviously not every member is criminal, and indeed most of the members may be opposed to what leadership is doing financially, but those members have no influence. When the organization itself is circling the wagons to defend LaPierre and cohorts, merely filing criminal charges against him, with or without charges against a crony or three, is not effective.
From the complaint:
There’s a lot more. Of interest: the law specifically gives the AG the right to dissolve nonprofits that are clearly acting against their stated mission. And the remedy proposed is to dissolve the NRA and to give its assets to other groups who will further its stated mission. Also, the AG is requiring LaPierre et al to repay the NRA for what they took illegally.
Breaking down an organization that’s being run fraudulently is entirely within the power of the law: when an organization disobeys tax laws and financial laws, due to the persistent choices of its long-term leadership, that’s what happens.
Giving those assets to other second-amendment groups is pretty much the opposite of what you’d do if you were trying to undercut second amendment advocacy. If you really don’t want second amendment groups to succeed, you’d want their funds to be grossly mismanaged and siphoned off from advocacy, as the NRA was doing.