NRA funding - private vs. corporate?

I would be interested in an answer this question, too. I asked the same thing in another thread but now one seemed to have an answer.

The gun industry made about as much profit last year as Starbucks.

Beware the powerful Coffee lobby...

do we know just how much of the funding the NRA brings to bear is the result of you and me paying our dues

Click to expand...

Easy.

NONE.

The NRA is a tax exempt organization and is not allowed to lobby.

The NRA-Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) is the separate lobbying arm, and solicits its own money.

And the gun manufacturers have their own lobby, the NSSF. After all, the interests of shooters and gun manufacturers do not always coincide. Cheap imports from Eastern Europe is great for shooters, not so great if you are trying to sell made in USA rifles (with all those associated costs).

Easy.

NONE.

The NRA is a tax exempt organization and is not allowed to lobby.

The NRA-Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) is the separate lobbying arm, and solicits its own money.

Click to expand...

While true, this is simply nit picking and does nothing to answer the original question of how much of the NRA-ILA lobbying effort is supported by industry donations, and how much by private donations? The media is constantly portraying the "NRA" as nothing more than a front for the "gun industry" and I for one would love to be able to refute this, but I can't without some sort of hard numbers.

At the risk of stating the obvious, have you tried contacting the NRA staff directly? When in doubt, go to the source?

The "NRA" as previously stated does not receive any funds for lobbying. ILA is NOT "the NRA" the way the antis use the term. Every time I hear the name used on TV they invariably show the NRA building headquarters in DC. Let's not nit pick, but use the same terms as the foes use. That's only fair. It's like saying "the government" when you really mean "Democrats" or "republicans".

ILA is NOT "the NRA" the way the antis use the term.

Click to expand...

I disagree. When the antis and media are discussing the "NRA" it is invariable in regards to lobbying efforts to block anti-gun legislation (i.e. the NRA-ILA). They are certainly never talking about the various training, competiton, safety programs or other member services the actual NRA provides.

Found this interesting: http://factcheck.org/2013/01/do-assault-weapons-sales-pay-nra-salaries/

The anti-2a crowd are talking about the ILA.

Anyone that knew a thing about the firearm industry would know that the NRA does not lobby for the firearms industry. It is for firearms owners. The NSSF is the group that represents manufacturers.

Why does it matter? Corporations fund pro environment, pro abortion, same sex marriage, pro 2nd amendment, anti-abortion,anti-gay marriage etc groups all the time. Throw in Liberal Foundations and Conservative foundations and Unions. Big Deal except for left wing propaganda use. For every action there is an opposite reaction.

Think of it this way, even if big gun company's do fund a large portion of the NRA, and the NRA-ILA, WE are the ones funding the big gun companies by purchasing their products.

Midway recently donated 1 million dollars to the NRA, that was 1$ for every customer. WE funded Midway.
Ruger did the same thing, WE funded Ruger.

In the end it's ALL supported buy us, the gun owners.

Regardless, the NRA has 4.5 million active members and probably a few hundred thousand that are non-due paying but also keep an ear open to what the NRA says. That's the awkward fact that many anti-gunners try to dance around. Its hard to say "we demonize 4.5 million Americans" on national TV and not parade how out of touch they are.

It is not jut the money that make ILA powerful, it is the votes they can turn out from the NRA membership.

Bill Clinton publicly said the dems lost the house over the previous AWB.

Corporations do not get a vote.

Sooooo, whether we think it matters or not; Does the NRA derive most of its monetary influence from corporate interests?

It is telling that there's still not a clear answer, IMO. I personally don't think it matters since none of the issues before the NRA drive different motives in gunowners vs. companies (unlike the import bans). In today's climate where domestic policy is the order of the day, we're all aligned, and the companies act as a force multiplier for our voice, so no problem. But if the NRA gets many of its resources from gun companies, I don't see why we should beat around the bush about it; it just undermines the organization's legitimacy.

There's nothing wrong with being a highly-valued and effective mouthpiece for the good of individuals and organizations, after all. To distance ourselves from our allies only serves to weaken our battle lines; it's exactly what the Tobaccolishonists did with big, bad, Evil Tobacco, and pretending Ruger/S&W/et.al. don't bankroll our cause just because they make money off their products only serves to make our numbers look less intimidating.

We should flaunt the power our organizations and resources have to counteract targeted money dumps of people like Bloomberg, and be thankful we have allies willing to assist our cause. Takes it as proof that the concept of an armed populace is "worth it" to the most rational and calculating of individuals (accountants ). What large, profit-focused (i.e. reality focused) businesses endorse gun-bans out of legitimate self interest rather than emotion/intimidation? Not to sound like Ayn Rand or anything, but real profitability is a measure of real validity. How much money did the anti cause generate (not raise) for America last year? Or did it just cost us (on many levels)? Meanwhile, gun owners and gun companies have been fueling a wildly successful niche in heavy manufacturing throughout this whole economic morass.

TCB

According to published statements,[1] the NRA's total income for 2011 was $218,983,530, with total expenditures of $231,071,589. In 2010, the organization reported an income of $227.8 million with roughly $115 million in revenue generated from fundraising, sales, advertising and royalties, with the remainder originating from membership dues.[88] Corporate sponsors include a variety of companies such as outdoors supply, sporting goods companies, and firearm manufacturers.[88][89]

Since 2005, the organization has received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related firms[88] In 2008, Beretta exceeded $2 million in donations to the NRA, and in 2012, Smith & Wesson reached $1 million.[90] According to an April 2012 press release, Sturm, Ruger & Company raised $1.25 million through a program in which it donated $1 to the ILA for each gun it sold from May 2011 to May 2012.[90]

Click to expand...

Straight from wikipedia. So no only a small part of their money comes from gun makers.

I just read THIS it was worth the read, and more or less on topic.

I thought so too

deleted

The NRA is funded by both business and private donations. Despite major donations from large gun companies, have no illusions, private donations keep this group rich and influential. It is the huge number of people behind it that give it so much power, the money is only part of it.

The anti gun crowd points out that the gun lobby (NRA) gets millions per year in donations but won't point out that a huge portion of that is from private donors seeking to protect their individual gun rights.

It is a strategic move for them to claim that the NRA is funded solely by large corporations while groups like the Brady Campaign are funded by private investors.

The conpanies get a TAX BREAK for doating to the NRA sice it is a tax exempt educational entity.

NONE of that money can be used to lobby.

ONLY money to the ILA can be used to lobby.
And then there is NO tax break.