The Shit Storm that is the NRA Today & How We Got Here

[BillSWPA]

Chris already opened his own shop, so I'd say you're pretty spot on with the probability of that. https://www.cap6advisors.com/

It's just not feasible to build something from essentially scratch when we have an almost 150 year head start. ILA alone is about 100 employees, that's a lot of work/time to build an alternative. You also have to fund it, which is what Wayne is very good at.

We raised over 400 million in 2018. I hate fundraising, so I'm glad we have someone who is very good at it. Taking a single case to SCOTUS runs seven figures. Same with a large political ad buy or an effective ballot measure campaign. Somebody needs to keep the lights on.

I understand the importance of raising money, but:

How do we get to the point where we know the money will be spent on those Supreme Court cases, winning elections, lobbying, etc. rather than what we have seen lately?

I really don’t care how good someone is at raising money if that money is simply to support their own lifestyle rather than to fight for the cause.

I will say it again: if the NRA would adopt practices similar to those required of members of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, many of the present problems would disappear.

Are WLP and others willing to do that?

If not, why not?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eric_L]

Chris already opened his own shop, so I'd say you're pretty spot on with the probability of that. https://www.cap6advisors.com/

It's just not feasible to build something from essentially scratch when we have an almost 150 year head start. ILA alone is about 100 employees, that's a lot of work/time to build an alternative. You also have to fund it, which is what Wayne is very good at.

We raised over 400 million in 2018. I hate fundraising, so I'm glad we have someone who is very good at it. Taking a single case to SCOTUS runs seven figures. Same with a large political ad buy or an effective ballot measure campaign. Somebody needs to keep the lights on.

Your comment in my mind defines that Boomer “ok Boomer” comment. If you don’t see the problem with your status quo attitude......

Read Seth’s Bog (Google it). Anything is possible. Wayne is not special. Dozens of people could do what he does. And do it within the spirit and letter of non profit guidelines. With inclusivity and transparency.

It’s time for 150 years to change. Or wither.

[Totem Polar]

It's just not feasible to build something from essentially scratch when we have an almost 150 year head start. ILA alone is about 100 employees, that's a lot of work/time to build an alternative. You also have to fund it, which is what Wayne is very good at...

I dunno... a whole pile more people subscribe to dorm room product FB, youtube, or the ‘gram than ever subscribed to the WSJ or New York Times, despite 130 and almost 170 year dominance by the latter media giants, respectively. I agree that funding such like with any speed moves into "sidheshooter dating ScarJo" territory.

But nobody is irreplaceable if they fail to meet the needs of their supporters. Just ask all the other 150-year old businesses that ossified, corrupted, then died. That’s my fear. The NRA-ILA wing still meets my needs, for now, but I have great concerns around the ossification/corruption/death cycle, myself. JMO.

[BehindBlueI's]

It's just not feasible to build something from essentially scratch when we have an almost 150 year head start.

I don't find that a compelling argument, particularly as there's nothing prohibiting talent and donors from migrating to a new organization. Businesses, even empires, have collapsed with more of a legacy then that and their replacements don't have the legacy but also don't have the baggage. Kodak didn't fail because it didn't see the value in digital photography, they patented the first digital camera. They failed because their entire business was built around film and they couldn't dump the once-good-but-now-a-burden aspects of their organization quick enough to pivot to the new reality. The NRA is accumulating a lot of baggage. Branching out into social issues that it should have probably stayed out of, corruption, etc. I've been an NRA defender until pretty recently but I am now pretty agnostic reference if they can pivot fast enough to face the new realities. It seems to me as an outsider that they are clinging to much of the baggage that's dragging the organization down, and WLP's pay raise is just more of the same.

[blues]

Nice work if you can get it.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

In my opinion, this mirrors current business practices of short term gains and not long term strategic planning. I was listening to how companies are not using the Trump tax cut for investment in new facilities, research, enhancing the workers' salaries but buying back their own stock which turns out benefits management types who can sell their stock at enhanced profit levels.

The NRA and Wayne have thought that mining the shrinking demographic of conservative, primarily white males through rhetoric and adherence to Trump will maximize income for the moment. In the long term, that's a bad strategy. Half the country doesn't fit that model and the election is not a guarantee. SCOTUS coming to the rescue has yet to be seen, so the argument that give us money for the court cases - that's years in the future if ever. Will they truly take case that wipes out state bans, frees carry restrictions, etc.? I doubt it.

I've read that in the next decade, more than half the 18 year old cohort will be minorities. Trump love isn't a selling point for the new folks.

Add a smidgen of corruption, and their appeal will be minimized. That doesn't mean you can't get more money for awhile out of the old wells. I read about Virginia, where the progun folks seem to think that if they beat the bushes for ever rural type, they can turn the tide.

Expanding the RKBA pool is not thought to be possible and some folks don't want to do that anyway as they like their cultural subset of America.

[GardoneVT]

In my opinion, this mirrors current business practices of short term gains and not long term strategic planning. I was listening to how companies are not using the Trump tax cut for investment in new facilities, research, enhancing the workers' salaries but buying back their own stock which turns out benefits management types who can sell their stock at enhanced profit levels.

The NRA and Wayne have thought that mining the shrinking demographic of conservative, primarily white males through rhetoric and adherence to Trump will maximize income for the moment. In the long term, that's a bad strategy. Half the country doesn't fit that model and the election is not a guarantee. SCOTUS coming to the rescue has yet to be seen, so the argument that give us money for the court cases - that's years in the future if ever. Will they truly take case that wipes out state bans, frees carry restrictions, etc.? I doubt it.

I've read that in the next decade, more than half the 18 year old cohort will be minorities. Trump love isn't a selling point for the new folks.

Add a smidgen of corruption, and their appeal will be minimized. That doesn't mean you can't get more money for awhile out of the old wells. I read about Virginia, where the progun folks seem to think that if they beat the bushes for ever rural type, they can turn the tide.

Expanding the RKBA pool is not thought to be possible and some folks don't want to do that anyway as they like their cultural subset of America.

It’s a matter of risks.

Setting aside the topic of misappropriated expenses like a $6 million mansion, pivoting an organization is RISKY. It takes a leader (and major guts) to look at the environment and realize change is necessary - especially if $$ is still rolling in.

Insofar as the NRA goes, perhaps the idea of a Federal gun lobby is an obsolete operating model. Times change, and the biggest practical gains for gun rights lately have been at the state level. Sliding money and support to DC politicos is pointless if the opposition has deeper pockets (and they do). We’d probably get a lot further with an independent constitutional rights agency which used its resources to support social media and state-driven initiatives.

[joshs]

I understand the importance of raising money, but:

How do we get to the point where we know the money will be spent on those Supreme Court cases, winning elections, lobbying, etc. rather than what we have seen lately?

I really don’t care how good someone is at raising money if that money is simply to support their own lifestyle rather than to fight for the cause.

I will say it again: if the NRA would adopt practices similar to those required of members of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, many of the present problems would disappear.

Are WLP and others willing to do that?

If not, why not?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The SCOTUS cases are objectively there. NYSRPA, Rogers, Malpasso, and Worman are all NRA-supported cases. You can also look up ballot campaigns since we're usually the only group that creates a committee (although SAF did help last year with 1639). The same generally goes for campaign contributions and lobbying reports. And, since ILA has separate accounting, you can give directly to ILA and that money will be spent directly on lobbying, campaigns, and litigation.

My point about being good at fundraising was about comments over the apparent "raise." Wayne, like many CEOs, gets performance-based pay. When we have a year with substantial growth in contributions, then his pay is also going to grow.

[BillSWPA]

The SCOTUS cases are objectively there. NYSRPA, Rogers, Malpasso, and Worman are all NRA-supported cases. You can also look up ballot campaigns since we're usually the only group that creates a committee (although SAF did help last year with 1639). The same generally goes for campaign contributions and lobbying reports. And, since ILA has separate accounting, you can give directly to ILA and that money will be spent directly on lobbying, campaigns, and litigation.

My point about being good at fundraising was about comments over the apparent "raise." Wayne, like many CEOs, gets performance-based pay. When we have a year with substantial growth in contributions, then his pay is also going to grow.

Here are some articles that may be of interest:

Reasonableness of executive compensation in nonprofits:

https://www.501c3.org/nonprofit-executive-compensation/

Limitation of deductibility of executive compensation for publicly traded companies:

https://www.inc.com/barbara-weltman/...tax-guide.html

While the information about publicly traded companies is not directly applicable to the NRA, the $1 million limit for deductible compensation within a publicly traded for profit company is certainly indicative of what would be considered reasonable for a nonprofit.

Here is a link to the ECFA standards I have repeatedly referenced.

https://www.ecfa.org/Standards.aspx

Adhering to those standards would answer almost everyone's concerns, from the members to at least some of the government bodies currently investigating the NRA. I would predict that adhering to those standards would increase donations even if WLP stays.

What specifically is objectionable within those standards?

[joshs]

Your comment in my mind defines that Boomer “ok Boomer” comment. If you don’t see the problem with your status quo attitude......

Read Seth’s Bog (Google it). Anything is possible. Wayne is not special. Dozens of people could do what he does. And do it within the spirit and letter of non profit guidelines. With inclusivity and transparency.

It’s time for 150 years to change. Or wither.

My 150 year comment was really about name recognition, which is extremely important for nonprofit fundraising. How much research have you assessed testing various messengers for pro-gun fundraising? I've done it quite a bit. I can tell you that the messenger matters. If dozens of other people could do what he does, why have other pro-gun groups remained so small compared to NRA?

We're also not withering. We regularly assess everything we do, so that we can improve and adapt to better represent our members.

Also, you're about two generations off with the boomer comment.