New York Attorney General went after the National Rifle Association not out of concern for its members, but because she has ideological issues with the organization. She might claim otherwise, but her own rhetoric on the NRA in the past suggests otherwise.
However, there were, in fact, serious problems with the organization. There was actual corruption at the top of the NRA, which has now been dealt with.
The NRA is far from out of the woods. There is still a trial ongoing.
Stephen Gutowski, writing at The Reload, has an outline of what James wants for the NRA. First, Wayne LaPierre would have to be kept well away from the organization, which I don't think anyone disagrees with at this point. There would also be an overseer, someone nominated by the NRA but approved by the court, in consultation with the NY state attorney general. Then there's more (paywalled):
A second filing provided greater detail on how the oversight process would work and exactly how much access the court-appointed official would have. The AG proposed that the new official serve for three years after being nominated by the NRA and approved by the court. They would primarily be responsible for watching how the NRA spends its money, especially in areas that lead to the corruption central to the case—like related-party transactions and travel arrangements.
“This entails ensuring that the NRA implements and enforces its internal controls, policies, procedures and practices governing financial transactions and matters, including without limitation for purchasing, procurement, conflicts of interest and related party transactions, business ethics, expense reimbursements, travel expenses and gifts, gratuities and entertainment, are effective,” the second filing said. “This means that they are in place, compliant with governing law, communicated to staff, directors, vendors and NRA members, and consistently executed and enforced by the NRA’s management, and the NRA Board has knowledge of the content and operation and exercises reasonable oversight to ensure compliance.”
The filing also laid out what the overseer wouldn’t have authority over. It said the court-appointed official wouldn’t have a say over the “NRA’s Core Fundamental Mission Operations.” Those operations include the “political, legislative and advocacy activities of the NRAILA, including, without limitation, management of donor-restricted funds, the substance of programs comprising the NRA’s nonprofit mission,” as well as “mission-related (meaning advocacy) litigation.”
In other words, it looks like the oversight authority wouldn't extend to anything involved in fighting for gun rights in this country, only in making sure that money is spent how it's meant to be spent.
In theory, this shouldn't be an issue. We have reform candidates who won some seats on the NRA board, so there are at least some people internally who are going to fight to make sure the NRA does what it said it would do, so having a third party from the outside also makes sure shouldn't be a huge issue.
I'd love to say that this sets a precedence that I'm uncomfortable with, though I don't know that this establishes a precedence at all. If this has happened before with other non-profits, then so be it.
My hesitancy stems mostly from not trusting Letitia James not to try to find some kind of loophole through which she and those who come after her can monkey with the NRA fulfilling its mission.
But if there are safeguards on that, then this is hardly the worst thing in the world. It would also allow the NRA to refocus its efforts on something other than defending itself in a court of law. It can then really buckle down on defending gun rights, which has been lacking.
Yeah, I still think other groups will fill the void, but that's taking longer than I'd like or than we can afford.
So long as this doesn't allow anyone to prevent the NRA from spending money on its actual mission, then so be it. However, I will qualify all of this to say that I'm not remotely equipped to evaluate whether that's the case or not.
