Sen. Gillibrand's Latest Talking Point About The NRA Is Completely False [More]It would be hard to find someone with more contempt for her than me, but the claim that "NRA is largely funded by the gun manufacturers" should be evident to anyone who has ever looked through one of their magazines and seen all the ads. In a few weeks members will be going to a convention where the industry has spent a fortune renting booths.
Add to that the Round-Up program, endowments, corporate sponsorships and the like -- here's just one example.
That doesn't invalidate the "five million members" claim (although I'd like to see that substantiated) or say that those members don't provide substantial funding themselves -- but that's not the claim being made here, is it?
The "completely false" assertion misinforms. And it does so in a way that transitions what Gillibrand claims into something she did not.
[Via Michael G]
1 comment:
The problem is that there’s “the NRA,” and there’s “the NRA.” Also, there’s “the NRA.”
There’s the NRA the 501(c)(2) membership (huntin’, shootin’ and trainin’) organization. There’s the NRA/ILA, the political/lobbying arm. There’s the NRA the 501(c)(3) tax-deductible charitable Foundation.
The membership organization publishes all the magazines, reaps all the ad money, and runs the show booths. But they’re not the ones who strong-arm congress.
The remaining question is, where does the ILA get most of its funds from? I don’t know the answer to that. I suspect no one not in Fairfax HQ does.
Post a Comment