Poll: NRA is largely a

[JMS]

If they get a large enough amount of their money from their own programs they have enough power to say no to any of the major gun manufacturers. They may have enough power to be leading, without seeking too much approval, on some issues within the US.

The NY Times puts their annual budget at 300 million with "millions of members" just last week.. Wikipedia places their membership at 4.3 million members...

The N.R.A. has become a formidable player, with a $300 million budget, millions of members around the country and virtually unmatched ferocity in advancing its political and legislative interests.

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_rifle_association/index.html

It would seem to be a pretty broadly supported organization. I could not find how much money is given directly from corporate "friends", I did find an article which said they made almost 8 million dollars over several years from selling ammunition online.

---------- Post added December-27th-2012 at 11:15 AM ----------

In the context of this poll, deriving financial benefits indirectly and deriving financial benefits directly is equivalent.

It's a silly poll then, cause I would argue that a group like the Audobon Society which indirectly gains contributions through it's advocacy on behalf of Birds and nature preservation is entirely different than a group like Exxon which directly benefits from it's advocacy on behalf of Exxon service stations. To lump them together is fundamentally dishonest regardless of the fact that their are professional folks who are entirely supported by their work at the Audobon non profit. Nobody see's the Audobon society volunteers cleaning birds after an oil spill and mutters under their breath... selfish ****s. But that is what you are suggesting here. That folks who indirectly benefit financially from providing advocacy are equivalent to those who benefit directly.

IThe question is whether financial benefit is the primary interest of the organization.

Any group which raises hundreds of millions a year has a lot of folks working there who are entirely and primarily interested in fundraising.... I would also argue a 501© non profit with strict reporting and oversight by the IRS is not an ideal organizational status for a collection of folks who are mostly profit motivated. Which is why Exxon is not a non profit!! The status alone indicates you give away most of the money you collect in support of your stated cause, and you have to demonstrate how the money you give supports your cause to the IRS or loose your 501© status.

So, Folks who represent themselves as an advocacy group, who spend the overwhelming amount of money they raise in advocacy... and are a licensed monitored non profit with the IRS who receive tax deductible donations for advocacy... their primary motivation is likely advocacy.

[alexey]

It's a silly poll then, cause I would argue that a group like the Audobon Society which indirectly gains contributions through it's advocacy on behalf of Birds and nature preservation is entirely different than a group like Exxon which directly benefits from it's advocacy on behalf of Exxon service stations. To lump them together is fundamentally dishonest regardless of the fact that their are professional folks who are entirely supported by their work at the Audobon non profit. Nobody see's the Audobon society volunteers cleaning birds after an oil spill and mutters under their breath... selfish ****s. But that is what you are suggesting here. That folks who indirectly benefit financially from providing advocacy are equivalent to those who benefit directly.

...

You seem to keep missing the point. All organizations have to get money, people, etc. Some organizations are primarily driven by principles while others are driven by economics. Audobon Society is a great example of the former. American Petroleum Institute is a great example of the latter. So far, 41 people have placed NRA into the former category, 76 people into the latter category, and an unknown number of people have abstained from voting.

[JMS]

You seem to keep missing the point. All organizations have to get money, people, etc. Some organizations are primarily driven by principles while others are driven by economics. Audobon Society is a great example of the former. American Petroleum Institute is a great example of the latter. So far, 41 people have placed NRA into the former category, 76 people into the latter category, and an unknown number of people have abstained from voting.

The poll doesn't make the distinction between direct and indirect benefits from their advocacy, that you did which I believe are determinative in identifying their "primary" interest. That's all I'm saying.

Thus I would argue both are true.. The NRA has a primary interest in advancing pro gun policy and upholding the second amendment of the constitution to it's traditional meaning. This is the stated purpose of the NRA non profit and they are independently and thoroughly scrutinized annually to verify that their financials are used towards these pursuits by the IRS as terms of their non profit status.. This has the effect of advancing economic interests of gun manufacturers.