"and the large individual donations from manufacturers," This, FWIW, is in fact the case with the brady groups as well. Honestly: It's just that companies tend

"and the large individual donations from manufacturers," This, FWIW, is in fact the case with the brady groups as well. Honestly: It's just that companies tend to donate more to individuals. That seems normal. "I agree though 'more or less' overstates that relationship, I was wrong. I'll amend that to: the industry has influence over the policies the NRA advocates for, and benefits from those policies appearing to come from their large member base. " I think you have the arrow of causation backwards. How do you now know that it isn't "NRA individual members want to make sure industry does not get screwed, so NRA works with industry to formulate policies that help the industries, to help their members" ? Cause otherwise, i could argue the same thing about the brady groups. "The non-lethal weapon industry has influence over the policies the various brady groups advocate, and benefits from those policies appearing to come from their large member base" (substitute non-lethal-weapons from any of a number of industries that benefit here. there are plenty on both sides of this coin :P) I believe, without evidence otherwise, that the arrow of causation is "members want industry to survive and thrive, so mother org works with industry policy wise". Note that your arrow of causation is applicable to roughly any major org. IE industry donates heavily to EFF, in large amounts (though not, AFAIK, larger than user base, much like the NRA). Therefore "industry has influence over the policies EFF advocates for, and benefits from those policies appearing to come from their large member base". (as you can see, this argument line can be applied to any association accepting corporate contribution :P)