Posted on 08/04/2018 2:09:02 PM PDT by pabianice
The deep-pocketed NRA claims it’s going broke and may soon “be unable to exist” — and blames Gov. Andrew Cuomo for its purported poverty, according to a recent court document that’s part of its lawsuit against the state.
The pro-gun lobby — which gave a record $21 million to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign — said it’s headed to the poorhouse ...
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I don’t believe Fredo Cuomo can take down the NRA
I'm trying to see where in the article or in any NRA statement it said that it is "broke and on the verge of collapse". What do you know - the media is lying again. As surprising as a sunrise.
The NRA is saying that it will suffer damages from New York's strong arming its insurance company.
Not exactly. Ore of a problem that they cannot get insurance due to blacklisting. No amount of money will fix that.
LOL, of course not. They had 8 years, every chance of obamatard to get rid of the NRA and the NRA is still operating. By the time we colonize the galaxy, the NRA will still be around.
Maybe I will get an offer to get a “Double Patron, Savior Angel” membership.
Hey, it is cheaper than the alternatives.
Repeal the Second Amendment By Bret Stephens Oct. 5, 2017The National Rifle Association does not have Republican “balls in a money clip,” as Jimmy Kimmel put it the other night. The N.R.A. has donated a paltry $3,533,294 to all current members of Congress since 1998, according to The Washington Post, equivalent to about three months of Kimmel’s salary. The N.R.A. doesn’t need to buy influence: It’s powerful because it’s popular.
It is a firm that can not bank or get insurance.
That is a clear and present threat to survival. Hence the case
Why don't they move or is this a problem for them all over the US?
I know some tried unsuccessfully to do the same thing to marijuana companies. Trying to force the banks not to do business with them. Cut off their banking services and force them to deal with it some more difficult way.
I don't believe they are going broke but if the NRA were in serious financial trouble, it wouldn't be for long. Millions would send money in to support them.
Is this just hyperbole for their lawsuit or are they really in trouble? Or is this just much to do about nothing?
Anyone know or want to venture a guess?
If there is any truth to this at all; it is only localized to NY and likely a temporary situation until the state of NY is sued into oblivion.
Piss poor management. You cannot have a company like the NRA have such a high demand yet have fiscal problems without it simply being piss poor managers.
Let me run the place for just 30 days I could easily turn around that place.
Has the NRA posted a response to this lie yet?
The collapse of the Soviet Union was very good news for Russia. Why? it eliminated a bogeyman. The “collapse” of the NRA would have the same effect.
The NRA is not what matters. Other organizations could do the same job. Perhaps better.
The NRA has its headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, just outside of DC.
NRA is going to win; BIG TIME. Lots of constitutional violations in the state law as well as interpretation.
Until a person is actually convicted, there is no crime. The only thing that will be left to decide are the damages.
Preliminary Statement in the Complaint:
This case is necessitated by an overt viewpoint-based discrimination campaign against the NRA and the millions of law-abiding gun owners that it represents. Directed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, this campaign involves selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threatswith a singular goal – to deprive the NRA and its constituents of their First Amendment rights to speak freely about gun-related issues and defend the Second Amendment.
The foundation of Defendants’ selective-enforcement and retaliation campaign is a series of threats to financial institutions that DFS, an agency created to ensure the integrity of financial markets after the 2008 credit crisis, will exercise its extensive regulatory power against those entities that fail to sever ties with the NRA. To effect their sweeping agenda, Defendants issued public demands that put DFS-regulated institutions on notice to “discontinue[] their arrangements with the NRA” and other “gun promotion organizations” if they planned to do business in New York.
At the same time, Defendants engaged in back-channel communications to reinforce their intended purpose. Simply put, Defendants made it clear to banks and insurers that it is bad business in New York to do business with the NRA.
As a direct result of this coercion, multiple financial institutions have succumbed to Defendants’ demands and entered into consent orders with DFS that compel them to terminate longstanding, beneficial business relationships with the NRA, both in New York and elsewhere. Tellingly, several provisions in the orders bear no relation to any ostensible regulatory infraction. Moreover, Defendants’ abuses will imminently deprive the NRA of basic bank-depository services, corporate insurance coverage, and other financial services essential to the NRA’s corporate existence and its advocacy mission.
Absent injunctive relief, Defendants’ blacklisting campaign will continue to damage the NRA and its members, as well as endanger the free speech and association rights guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States and the State of New York. It is well-settled that viewpoint discrimination applied through “threat[s] of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion,persuasion, and intimidation” violates the United States Constitution where, as here, such measures chill protected First Amendment activities.1 Defendants’ de facto censorship scheme cannot survive judicial scrutiny. Nor should it.
42. On or about February 25, 2018, the Chairman of Lockton Companies, placed a distraught telephone call to the NRA. Lockton had been a close business partner of the NRA for nearly twenty years; its commitment to the parties’ business relationship had not wavered in connection with the Parkland tragedy, nor the prior Sandy Hook tragedy, nor any previous wave of public controversy relating to gun control. Nonetheless, although he expressed that Lockton privately wished to continue doing business with the NRA, the chairman confided that Lockton would need to “drop” the NRA—entirely—for fear of “losing [our] license” to do business in New York.
43. On February 26, 2018, Lockton publicly tweeted that it would discontinue providing brokerage services for all NRA-endorsed insurance programs.
65. Defendants’ concerted efforts to stifle the NRA’s freedom of speech and to retaliate against the NRA based on its viewpoints are causing other insurance, banking, and financial institutions doing business with the NRA, such as Lloyd’s of London (“Lloyd’s”), to rethink their mutually beneficial business relationships with the NRA for fear of monetary sanctions or expensive public investigations.40 Indeed, Lloyd’s announced on May 9, 2018, that it would “terminate all insurance offered, marketed, endorsed, or otherwise made available” through the NRA in light of the DFS Investigation.
66. The NRA has encountered serious difficulties obtaining corporate insurance coverage to replace coverage withdrawn by the Corporate Carrier. The NRA’s inability to obtain insurance in connection with media liability raises risks that are especially acute; if insurers remain afraid to transact with the NRA, there is a substantial risk that NRATV will be forced to cease operating. The NRA has spoken to numerous carriers in an effort to obtain replacement corporate insurance coverage; nearly every carrier has indicated that it fears transacting with the NRA specifically in light of DFS’s actions against Lockton and Chubb.
67. Defendants’ threats have also imperiled the NRA’s access to basic banking services, despite the absence of any alleged regulatory violations in connection with the NRA’s banking activities. Multiple banks withdrew their bids in the NRA’s RFP process following the issuance of the April 2018 Letters, based on concerns that any involvement with the NRA—even providing the organization with basic depository services—would expose them to regulatory reprisals.
68. Defendants’ campaign is achieving its intended chilling effect on banks throughout DFS’s jurisdiction. Speaking “on the condition of anonymity,” one community banker from Upstate New York told American Banker magazine that in light of the apparent “politically motivated” nature of the DFS guidance, “[i]t’s hard to know what the rules are” or whom to do business with, because bankers must attempt to anticipate “who is going to come into disfavor with the New York State DFS” or other regulators.42 Other industry sources told American Banker that, “such regulatory guidelines are frustratingly vague, and can effectively compel institutions to cease catering to legal businesses.”
Tell Fredericks at the Post the NRA isn’t going anywhere.
Send him the “Boo boo girl” gif too.
5.56mm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.