501(c) nonprofit online tax form 990 finder

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Telperion

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2003
Messages
1,482
Location
Oregon
Brady Campaign execs get paid well indeed

Be sure to look up the tax returns for the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence." In 2005 Sarah Brady was paid $144,000 in salary plus benefits. Other executives were paid even more.

Perhaps more interesting in this forum is that the Brady Campaign reported receiving contributions of $5,431,155 from the public in 2005--almost 5-1/2 millon dollars that year alone.

Think of that amount when you read messages in this forum and other gun forums from people who complain about the NRA's activities to raise money in support of the ongoing fight for their gun rights. The NRA is battling against really big money while gun owners quit because they don't like being solicited to contribute.

My own proposed solution to the discomfort caused by the NRA solicitations is simple and elegant. We should ask the NRA not to engage in more than one fight a year or, perhaps, to fight only every third attempt to restrict our gun rights. That way the NRA would not need so much money.
 
Better look at NRA's 990 First

There's a reason people complain about NRA's solicitations. You mention the "Big Bucks" that Sarah gets (and the $150k is nothing, most of her compensation comes under the table as "speaking fees"), but you'd better look at NRA's 990, before you lecture the troops about complaining about the solicitations.

Jeff
 
Hi Jeff. I seem to have touched a nerve. It was unintentional. I hadn't thought I was "lecturing" anyone and I don't think of other forum members as "the troops."

It seems to me more than a bit disingenuous to compare a single-issue single-purpose organization like The Brady Campaign with the NRA, which encompasses a great many activities and imposes commensurate responsibilities and duties on its management.

I do wish that the pro-gun community were more of a community, with less of an unpleasant history to constantly divide it. It would be easier to respect persons of influence if they could pull in a common direction for the common good instead of sniping at those on the same side. But I am not a person of influence, only a gun owner whose fate rests in their hands. All I can do is hope that the ship manages to stay afloat while all the competing admirals argue about who has a nicer uniform.

If it's permissible for the ranks to express opinions, I'll stand by what I said about the destructiveness of complaining about the NRA requests for money to fight for our gun rights. I understand that you disagree and have your own reasons for doing so. I'm merely interested in keeping my guns. I don't see that weakening the major organization helps that at all.
 
If you want to compare apples to apples then you need to look at the NRA-ILA's 990 to compare to the Brady's. The Brady's don't do training and education (Women on Traget, Refuse to be a Victim, plus all the Shotgun, Pistol, Rifle, Law Enforcment Officer training, etc) that the NRA does. Not to mention the annual meeting and convention.
 
I'm an Endowment Member

Robert,
I wasn't shooting at you. Yes, part of my post was triggered by your criticism of guys complaining about dunning letters, but I was talking to all of the posters on the subject of how organizations - both pro and anti - raise and spend money.
I frequently refer to the grassroots guys as "the troops", it's a habit I picked up from my father and it is a term of respect, as in the guys who do all of the real work.
Having access to 990's is a very useful tool that can raise a lot of important questions. I'm particularly curious as to why there is no mention of Bob Ricker in the 990 for AHSA. Ricker travels the country for these guys as their Executive Director, but they give no indication of ever paying anyone anything? Maybe they're too new and that covered the year before Bob got involved, I don't know, but it's curious.
I too would love to see fighters for gun rights united, but I refuse to sit idly by when some "leader" heads down a destructive path or begs for money while putting large amounts in his own pocket.
Blind loyalty and unity for unity's sake are formulas for disaster. Healthy skepticism, serious questions, and occasional disagreements make the movement - and NRA - stronger.

Yours for the Second Amendment,

Jeff Knox
The Firearms Coalition
 
Having fallen off the turnip truck so long ago that I can't even recall when it happened, I'm somehow not much surprised by a revelation that people work for money and want as much as possible. Nor am I shocked that leaders of large non-profit organizations involved in fundraising receive salaries commensurate with the fundraising results.

But if you are implying that Wayne LaPierre or anyone else in the NRA "pockets" (which suggests illegality) large amounts of the organization's money that's something you should say directly and prove. The innuendo of illegality is destructive and, coming from a person of influence, offputting. Infighting always is destructive and offputting and, also, tends to be self destructive. Since you think in terms of "the troops" perhaps you might want to consider reserving your fire for the enemy instead of turning it to those on your own side. Perhaps I've mistaken your suggestion.

There's never a need "to sit idly by" when troubled by something significant, but there's rarely much value in shooting at those who ought to be one's comrades even if they are not the comrades of choice. Organizations don't often function through unanimous opinion especially when they are composed of strong personalities.

I don't see that as either blind loyalty or unity for the sake of unity but as the only way to win a war. My goals are to keep my own firearms and strengthen the Second Amendment so my descendants have even greater possibilities. I have great tolerance for differences of opinion in how to accomplish those goals but I have none at all for petty politics. There will come a time when the terms of today's battles among various pro gun organizations and personalities are forgotten. All that will remain is whether Americans have or do not have at least the same rights inherited by this generation. That's what interests me.

My own point was directed towards that goal. If you consider it blind loyalty or unity for the sake of unity we have less in common than I had thought and hoped. We join together or we wither.
 
Interestingly VPC had an income of $773,589 in 2005 and paid it's Exec. Director $132,894 plus benefits for 40 hours per week ($63,89/hour). In addition there were a number of other highly paid individuals with salaries of between $59,000 and $132,894. So virtually all of it's income goes to salaries and compensation ($620,103 in 2005). Their income has also been declining. In 2001 it was $1,335,765 and it has declined every year reported in this form 999 since then. Note that their income has declined by about 42% during the five year period from 2001 to 2005. This is good news for us. In addition they out spent their income and had a total out flow of $1,009,478 (IE. a short fall of $235,889 for 2005). Again good new for us since this means they are depleting their assets.

GAO had an income of $2,063,627 (almost three times as much) and paid it's exec. director $65,000 for about 30 hours per week ($41,67.hour) and he is the only person being paid a salary that is over $50,000/year So all of the other funding goes to pay for GOA activities and things needed to support those activities (computers, office supplies, travel...). Their tax return is very detailed and every expense including things like a office chairs and computer memory upgrades are listed. But prior year numbers are not on this form 999 (perhaps because they are not running in the red like VPC?).

JPFO is by far the smallest of these three organizations with an income of $304,692. They do not have anyone who receives a compensation of more than $50,000.

Looking at these tax forms the differences between anti-second amendment and pro-second amendment organizations could not be more striking. The anti organizations spend most of their income to pay for the people who manage the organization where as the pro organizations spend very little (relative to their income) for this purpose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top