5 ms·

> The NRA only spent ~ $350K in the two efforts Only? That sounds like a fairly large sum of money to an organization like the EFF who presumably has politica

> The NRA only spent ~ $350K in the two efforts Only? That sounds like a fairly large sum of money to an organization like the EFF who presumably has political enemies like Hollywood with deep pockets and no big allies -- the NRA at least has gun manufacturers, for example. Dismaying to say the least that that's the starting cost to enact political change. ALA? The American Library Association? =P

hga 13y ago
ALA? Oops, it's the ALF, Animal Liberation Front, the "direct action" AKA terrorist organization, as opposed to People Eating Tasty Animals, errr, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who aren't hardly so toxic except for their sub rosa support of the ALF and Earth Liberation Front. As for "only ~ $350K", that's a significant hunk of change for the NRA (this was a very important contest), but it's nearly pocket change for Bloomberg, who has a net worth of $27 billion and regularly drops low 100s of millions in donations per year while his net worth keeps going up (per my memory): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg#Philanthropy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg#Philanthropy "the NRA at least has gun manufacturers, for example" A common and telling misconception (regime supporting propaganda is a very important factor in both of these fights), those represent a very small fraction of the NRA's income and influence; the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is their trade organization and lobby, the NRA is of gun owners. This is very important because there are a whole lot more of the latter, and it's the 5 million members of the NRA that give it the money to spend on things like the commercials they ran in the Colorado recalls, and the votes and influence on non-member voters. Very important because per Wikipedia the ACLU has 1/10 the number of members and a budget of $100 million vs. $230 for the NRA. Now, a lot of the NRA's budget goes to its traditional roles (training and marksmanship), but on the other hand the ACLU's remit is much broader, roughly all of the Bill of Rights except the 2nd Amendment. There are some local chapters that are sympathetic and supportive of gun owners but that's it, and I'd bet their budgets aren't including the the $100 million total, ditto all the local gun organizations, like the ones that sprung up out of nothing that took down these two arrogant Colorado legislators. It makes a very big difference when your enemies convict themselves with their own words and actions, and this anti-spying effort isn't quite as blessed with those. So the ACLU has a lot of influence, is a big player in the courts, along with other orgs, then again the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is the biggest Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) player in the courts, and with most of the cases being lost by the gun grabbers its partly self-funding through awards of expenses and attorney fees (there are some cute pictures you can find on the net of e.g. the head of the SAF holding a 6 figure check robo-signed by the mayor of Chicago). But for this effort ... heck, we have infinite trouble even getting standing to sue! Anyway, getting down to what'll make a difference here, where we want NRA level political muscle, if the ACLU is the biggest player here, they can't threaten or influence legislators a fraction as much as the NRA and gunowners can. There are simply of magnitude more of members and voters for whom the RKBA is very important, and per my linked comment I don't see that changing prior to a bunch of spying atrocities. Which the national security state seems to be pretty good at avoiding, e.g. the DEA's excesses in working directly with phone companies target drug dealers, whom are overwhelmingly viewed as scum of the earth (and as long as it's illegal, requiring self-help to settle disputes, that's not far from the truth).

hga 13y ago

ALA? Oops, it's the ALF, Animal Liberation Front, the "direct action" AKA terrorist organization, as opposed to People Eating Tasty Animals, errr, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who aren't hardly so toxic except for their sub rosa support of the ALF and Earth Liberation Front. As for "only ~ $350K", that's a significant hunk of change for the NRA (this was a very important contest), but it's nearly pocket change for Bloomberg, who has a net worth of $27 billion and regularly drops low 100s of millions in donations per year while his net worth keeps going up (per my memory): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg#Philanthropy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg#Philanthropy "the NRA at least has gun manufacturers, for example" A common and telling misconception (regime supporting propaganda is a very important factor in both of these fights), those represent a very small fraction of the NRA's income and influence; the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is their trade organization and lobby, the NRA is of gun owners. This is very important because there are a whole lot more of the latter, and it's the 5 million members of the NRA that give it the money to spend on things like the commercials they ran in the Colorado recalls, and the votes and influence on non-member voters. Very important because per Wikipedia the ACLU has 1/10 the number of members and a budget of $100 million vs. $230 for the NRA. Now, a lot of the NRA's budget goes to its traditional roles (training and marksmanship), but on the other hand the ACLU's remit is much broader, roughly all of the Bill of Rights except the 2nd Amendment. There are some local chapters that are sympathetic and supportive of gun owners but that's it, and I'd bet their budgets aren't including the the $100 million total, ditto all the local gun organizations, like the ones that sprung up out of nothing that took down these two arrogant Colorado legislators. It makes a very big difference when your enemies convict themselves with their own words and actions, and this anti-spying effort isn't quite as blessed with those. So the ACLU has a lot of influence, is a big player in the courts, along with other orgs, then again the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is the biggest Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) player in the courts, and with most of the cases being lost by the gun grabbers its partly self-funding through awards of expenses and attorney fees (there are some cute pictures you can find on the net of e.g. the head of the SAF holding a 6 figure check robo-signed by the mayor of Chicago). But for this effort ... heck, we have infinite trouble even getting standing to sue! Anyway, getting down to what'll make a difference here, where we want NRA level political muscle, if the ACLU is the biggest player here, they can't threaten or influence legislators a fraction as much as the NRA and gunowners can. There are simply of magnitude more of members and voters for whom the RKBA is very important, and per my linked comment I don't see that changing prior to a bunch of spying atrocities. Which the national security state seems to be pretty good at avoiding, e.g. the DEA's excesses in working directly with phone companies target drug dealers, whom are overwhelmingly viewed as scum of the earth (and as long as it's illegal, requiring self-help to settle disputes, that's not far from the truth).