The End Of The NRA?

Last night Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Tom Hamburger explained NY Attorney General Leticia James' decision to sue the NRA out of existence or, at least, out of New York, where they have been a chartered charity for over a century. James' case revolves around the $64 million top NRA officials drained out of the non-profit to enrich themselves, "a decades-long pattern of fraud to raid the coffers of the powerful gun rights group for personal gain," wrote Leonnig and Hamburger. "In her lawsuit, Attorney General Letitia James called for the dissolution of the NRA and the removal of CEO Wayne LaPierre from the leadership post he has held for the past 39 years, saying he and others used the group’s funds to finance a luxury lifestyle. She also asked a New York court to force LaPierre and three key deputies to repay NRA members for the ill-gotten money and inflated salaries that her investigation found they took. James accused the NRA leaders of flouting state and federal laws and signing off on reports and statements they knew were fraudulent, while diverting millions of dollars away from the NRA’s charitable mission to benefit themselves and their allies... Her investigation, which began in February 2019, found a 'a culture of self-dealing, mismanagement, and negligent oversight at the NRA that was illegal, oppressive, and fraudulent,' according to a statement by the attorney general’s office."

I asked Long Island Congressman Tom Suozzi if James can actually do this. He was crystal clear: "One of the central jobs of the New York State Attorney General is to oversee the conduct of charities operating within the state. General James is using the tools in the tool kit of her Charities Bureau to perform the oversight she is sworn to do. Bravo General!"

Trump is going crazy because the NRA spent millions on backing him in 2016 and planned to do the same thing between now and November. I suspect that James' suit is going to tie up their funds, at the very least.

Meanwhile, D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine announced Thursday that his office filed a separate lawsuit against the NRA Foundation, which is based in Washington. Racine accused the organization of being a puppet of the NRA, despite legal requirements that it independently pursue charitable purposes. Instead, Racine said his office found, the foundation repeatedly lent the NRA money to address its rising deficits.

James said at a news conference Thursday that she is seeking to dissolve the NRA because of the brazenness of the group’s violations of law.

“The corruption was so broad, and because they have basically destroyed all the assets of the NRA,” she said. “Enough was enough... No one is above the law, not even the NRA.”

Her office cited as a precedent its previous action against the Trump Foundation, which led Trump to shut down the charity in 2018 amid allegations he used it for his personal benefit.

The New York lawsuit against the NRA paints a picture of widespread wrongdoing at the influential gun rights group, and a freewheeling atmosphere in which top officials repeatedly took advantage of their positions for their personal benefit.

In one new revelation, the attorney general said her investigation uncovered that LaPierre recently arranged a post-employment contract for himself with the NRA worth $17 million. He never sought board approval for the deal, the suit claims.

The lawsuit also claims LaPierre failed to report large sums of personal income to the IRS. James’s office said it found that the NRA chief funneled personal expenses through an outside public relations firm, allowing him to avoid reporting hundreds of thousands of dollars of personal income.

James said Thursday that she was referring those findings to the IRS. She also said that if her office uncovers criminal activity, it will be referred to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.

In response, the NRA said Thursday that it was filing its own federal lawsuit against James, alleging that the attorney general has violated the group’s free speech rights and has been unfairly targeting the gun rights lobby since she began campaigning for the office.

“This was a baseless, premeditated attack on our organization and the Second Amendment freedoms it fights to defend,” NRA President Carolyn Meadows said in a statement. “You could have set your watch by it: the investigation was going to reach its crescendo as we move into the 2020 election cycle.”

NRA officials said they believe James’s action was designed to disrupt the group’s momentum at a critical time in the 2020 election campaign. The NRA political action arm is planning to spend tens of millions of dollars this fall to mobilize its members to defeat Democratic candidates who seek gun restrictions, including putative Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, according to a person familiar with fundraising, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal strategy.

“It’s a transparent attempt to score political points and attack the leading voice in opposition to the leftist agenda,” Meadows said. “This has been a power grab by a political opportunist-- a desperate move that is part of a rank political vendetta. Our members won’t be intimidated or bullied in their defense of political and constitutional freedom.”

Trump also decried the legal action against the organization, which spent millions on his behalf in 2016, calling it a “terrible thing” as he spoke to reporters Thursday morning at the White House. He said the NRA had been “decimated” by legal expenses and suggested the group should move from New York to Texas.

Experts in tax law said the deep investigation into the NRA’s finances showed the potential for state officials to vigorously enforce nonprofit rules.

“It is a watershed moment in nonprofit regulation,” said Douglas Varley, who advises nonprofit organizations at the law firm of Caplin & Drysdale.

With a decline in IRS funding and enforcement, there has been a widespread belief that “the locus of nonprofit enforcement is shifting from IRS to the states,” Varley said. “Here is the clearest possible evidence of that reality. I think everyone who believes a strong regulator is needed would heartened by this.”

The dual suits filed by the attorneys general in New York and Washington punctuate nearly two years of infighting at the NRA over management of the group’s funds, a civil war that led to the exodus of many veteran members and top officials.

...The group’s bitter internal battle burst into public view in April 2019 at the NRA’s annual convention in Indianapolis, when then-NRA President Oliver North was forced out by LaPierre after pressing for an internal financial review.

The Washington Post and other news organizations subsequently revealed how the NRA directed funds to board members and how LaPierre racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in charges at a Beverly Hills clothing boutique and on foreign travel.

The Post also reported how, after a mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., Pierre told close associates he was worried about how easily he could be targeted and needed a more secure place to live and sought to buy a $6 million, 10,000-square-foot French-style country estate in Westlake, Texas.

The suit expands on previous allegations that LaPierre improperly charged the NRA for private jet travel and luxury vacations that had no clear business purpose. The filing claims LaPierre billed the NRA more than $500,000 for private charter flights he and his family took to visit the Bahamas eight times over three years.

Last year, a spokesman for LaPierre told The Post his visits to the Bahamas were for NRA business. But the New York attorney general’s investigation found the trips were private vacations.

In four years, LaPierre was reimbursed by the NRA for $1.2 million in expenses that were personal trips, golf fees and gifts, the suit claims.

LaPierre also spent $3.6 million of NRA money for private travel consultants to arrange private jets and executive car service for his and his family’s use over just two years, the suit says. And he set aside several millions each year for private security for him and his family.

LaPierre also enjoyed the largesse of NRA vendors who hoped to keep their organization’s business, the suit said. One vendor gave LaPierre and his wife an all-expense paid trip to Africa for a safari adventure; another frequently loaned LaPierre and his family the use of his 107-foot yacht on his visits to the Caribbean.

Phillips, the former treasurer, is accused in the suit of arranging a NRA deal worth more than $1 million that benefited his girlfriend. The lawsuit also claims that shortly before he retired in 2018, Phillips obtained a contract for himself worth $1.8 million. On paper, Phillips’s contract called for him to provide advice and consulting services for the new treasurer; but the new treasurer said he knew nothing of the contract and never received any services from Phillips, the suit claims.

Powell, LaPierre’s former chief of staff, had his salary increased from $250,000 to $800,000 in just three years as a reward for his loyalty to LaPierre, the suit states, and allegedly pocketed an additional $100,000 he was not entitled to as a housing allowance. In addition, Powell also arranged for his wife and father to earn money through NRA contracts.

The lawsuit accuses Frazer, who was general counsel to the NRA, of failing to make sure the nonprofit was governed properly and followed state and federal laws, and it claims he certified false or misleading annual statements.

James said Frazer failed to comply with the rules on board governance, to make sure the board was aware of and voting on major financial transactions and to follow the NRA’s conflict of interest policy.

A central fraud embedded in NRA finances, James’s suit claims, was a secret agreement to pass questionable expenses through its Oklahoma-based advertising agency, Ackerman McQueen.

Under this agreement, the suit alleges, LaPierre and his inner circle of trusted deputies rerouted millions of dollars in lavish personal expenses for themselves, their families and allies through Ackerman McQueen. The goal was to avoid having the board or other members of the NRA know that the charitable organization was paying so much money for LaPierre’s membership fees at golf clubs, private jets and designer suits, the lawsuit said.

Ackerman McQueen then billed the NRA for these large, unexplained sums, calling them “out-of-pocket” expenses, suggesting they were related to the company’s advertising work for the NRA.

The attorney general’s office said it found that Ackerman McQueen billed the NRA $70 million in just 2017 and 2018 for its public relations work, including “out-of-pocket” expenses.

A very large portion of those hidden expenses were for personal trips and expenses for LaPierre. In a deposition in a separate lawsuit last year, LaPierre acknowledged he did not report any of the NRA-paid expenses as personal income to the IRS and claimed they were business expenses.

In its statement, the attorney general’s office said this practice “did not comply with IRS requirements, and, as a result, all such expenses should have been included by the NRA in taxable personal income for LaPierre.”

The partnership between the NRA and the public relations firm began to crack after James, then a candidate for New York attorney general, announced in summer of 2018 that she planned to launch an investigation of the NRA if she won. LaPierre hired a new law firm, led by Angus McQueen’s estranged son-in-law. That attorney, Bill Brewer, urged that the NRA to audit Ackerman McQueen’s bills in preparation for James’s probe.

At LaPierre’s direction and with Brewer’s help, the NRA ejected its in-house lawyer and sued Ackerman McQueen, accusing them of concealing details of the nearly $40 million the NRA paid the firm each year.

Last spring, North announced in Indianapolis he would not seek a second term as president, warning about exorbitant payments to Brewer’s firm and reports of financial mismanagement.

“There is a clear crisis,” North said in his letter announcing his departure.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) its considered Congress' most brilliant constitutional law expert. This morning he told me that "For many years, the NRA’s non-profit form has been nothing but cheap camouflage for rampant profiteering and straight-up ripoffs of NRA Members. When your political agenda is all about promoting the selfish desires of the few over the Interests of the many, the exploitation quickly comes home to roost."

Kathy Ellis is running for Congress against gun nut Jason Smith in southeast Missouri. She told me she is enthusiastic about James' decision to hold the NRA leadership accountable for their crooked activities. "As I heard the great news that the AG of NY was pursuing charges against the NRA president, board and others for running the 'charity' like it was their own bank," she told me this morning, 'I thought about my dad. He was an NRA member when it was an educational entity and as it became more of an advertiser for the gun manufacturers, he dropped his membership saying, 'Thus is becoming too political and will end up in trouble.' Well, they’re in trouble now. I hope that all the NRA endorsed candidates are 'sweating bullets.'" Marie Newman, who will be part of the class of 2020, seems to agree-- and wanted to make sure the voters in her Illinois district know it:

Building A Future With Fewer Guns

-by Igor Volsky

Federal legislative change takes a long time, but a hundred Americans are dying from gun violence every single day. That’s why in 2016 I founded Guns Down America, an organization dedicated to activating influential voices outside of the legislative arena to help build safer communities with fewer guns. Borrowing a page from the successful marriage equality movement, GDA is engaging corporations to weaken the gun industry and its lobby, create cultural change around the gun issue, and build surprising political coalitions that can actually pave the way for the bold reforms we need to truly save lives.

GDA runs two primary programs to build a future with fewer guns.

Our advocacy and campaigns program develops corporate-focused campaigns, including the successful efforts that pushed Walmart to walk away from gun sales, convinced two large insurers to stop underwriting a discriminatory insurance product offered by the NRA, and is driving major banks, Hollywood studios, retailers, and restaurants to lean into gun reform.

Our rapid response program builds powerful coalitions that drive a “fewer guns, safer communities” message in the media at critical junctures.

GUNS DOWN AMERICA SUCCEEDS IN PUSHING FEDEX TO END DISCOUNTS FOR NRA MEMBERS.

In December of 2016, Guns Down America unveiled its first corporate campaign, urging FedEx to stop offering discounts to NRA members. The effort, which we launched in partnership with Color of Change and other organizations, argued that the NRA’s opposition to sensible gun safety reforms led to increases in gun violence across the country and undermined FedEx’s stated commitment to serving, investing, and building economic power for communities of color.

Between the beginning of 2017 and the late fall of 2018, over half a million people signed our petition, hundreds participated in protests in front of FedEx storefronts all around the country, and called and emailed the shipping giant and its CEO directly, threatening to switch to a different shipper if FedEx continued to help the NRA recruit new members.

As a result, the company announced it would be ending its relationship with the gun lobby in October 2018.

GUNS DOWN AMERICA SUCCEEDS IN PUSHING TWO LARGE INSURERS TO STOP OFFERING THE NRA’S #MURDERINSURANCE.

In October of 2017, Guns Down America, in partnership with Color of Change and Sybrina Fulton (the mother of Trayvon Martin), launched a multi-faceted campaign urging two of the nation’s largest insurers, Chubb and Lockton Affinity, to stop underwriting the NRA’s Carry Guard insurance policies. The policies, which were sold through advertisements showing white people killing black and brown intruders, were designed to provide protection and peace of mind to individuals who “stood their ground” by shooting first and asking questions second. The insurance plans covered the cost of removing blood stains from carpets, offered killers replacement weapons and covered certain legal expenses.

Our campaign argued that such plans would only expand unjust Stand Your Ground laws, which disproportionately impact communities of color, and thus undermine the values and brand identity of Chubb and Lockton. The campaign included a moving video featuring Fulton, a large petition drive, social media activation and advocacy and a fly-over over one of the insurer’s corporate headquarters. Within months, both companies announced that they would not continue underwriting the NRA’s Carry Guard insurance plans. As a result of this effort, Chubb and Lockton Affinity faced multi-million dollar fines from Washington State and New York for violating state insurance regulations, sending a clear message about the dangers of working with the irresponsible and corrupt gun lobby.

GUNS DOWN AMERICA SUCCEEDS IN PUSHING WALMART TO LEAN INTO GUN REFORM

In the moments following the 2019 shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, GDA began publicly calling on the mega-store to become a more active participant in building safer American communities with fewer guns. We argued, publicly and privately, that Walmart’s corporate would be tarnished if, after a mass shooting on its premises, it did not act to prioritize the safety of its customers and employees by re-examining its own gun sales and using its leverage in Washington to fight for stricter gun laws.

Our calls elicited a strong public response and the coalition hosted multiple rallies at Walmarts all across the country, pushed thousands of Americans to hand-deliver “manager’s letters” with the coalition’s ask to local Walmarts, generated $5 million worth of earned media in major national outlets like MSNBC, USA Today and the Washington Post, and broadcast our message to more than 40 local news stations across the country. We also opened a direct channel of communication with Walmart leadership.

On Tuesday, Sep. 3, 2019 on the one-month anniversary of the shooting, Walmart announced they were ending handgun sales in Alaska (the only place it still sold such firearms), significantly limiting ammunition sales, and lobbying Congress on gun reform.



Following our successful effort in pushing Walmart to step away from gun sales, GDA assembled a coalition of over 20 partner organizations and, in December of 2019, launched Business Must Act-- a first-of-its-kind report card that grades the nation’s 29 largest retailers based on how much they’ve done to keep their customers and employees safe from gun violence.

GDA unveiled the campaign with a CNN exclusive. The campaign is now actively engaging with the leadership of several retailers and has raised the grade for one of the stores.

For instance, in May of 2020, after an incident in North Carolina saw armed white nationalist extremists walk into a Subway and intimidate pedestrians, Guns Down America, and several partners, stood up a campaign calling on Subway to ban open carry at their restaurants. The campaign launched a petition that garnered over 50,000 combined signatures and pushed over 3,000 GDA members to individually email top officials at Subway, asking them to ban open carry in their stores. These efforts led Subway to change its policy nationwide in July of 2020.

In light of the murder of George Floyd and the ongoing protests against police brutality and systemic racism, GDA is focusing its Business Must Act campaign efforts on pushing large corporations to invest in Black and Brown communities by, among other things, supporting community-based gun violence intervention programs. GDA has published a document tracking how major corporations have responded to the Black Lives Matter movement, highlighting companies that have failed to put their money where their mouths are on the issue.

GDA is currently working with on-the-ground service organizations in Chicago and Milwaukee on a campaign that will push household brands that are headquartered in those cities to make long-term investments in the communities they serve.

GDA IS PUSHING BANKS TO STOP DOING BUSINESS WITH THE IRRESPONSIBLE GUN INDUSTRY.

GDA launched the Is Your Bank Loaded? campaign in April of 2019 with the goal of pushing the nation’s largest public-facing consumer banks to stop doing business with the firearm and ammunition industry (until that industry can be fundamentally reformed) and developing a system for flagging large suspicious gun purchases using bank credit and debit cards.

The campaign has successfully pushed several banks, including JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo, to publicly distance themselves from firearm manufacturers and the NRA and we have begun the process of developing a series of recommendations the financial industry can take to report suspicious large gun purchases to authorities.

GDA IS BATTLING THE CORONAVIRUS GUN VIOLENCE SURGE.

In early March of 2020, as our leaders began responding to the coronavirus crisis, GDA grew concerned by press reports of Americans panic-buying firearms and ammunition in large numbers. We feared that these significant spikes in gun sales would result in corresponding increases in firearm suicides, domestic violence incidents, unintentional shootings and began driving a multi-organizational effort to: 1) educate the public about the dangers of firearm stockpiling, 2) push Congress to address these dangers, and 3) pressure retailers to re-open their stores with new policies that require their customers to leave their guns at home.

Given the rise of armed militias and the prevalence of armed protesters across the country, GDA is also standing up a body of work that will focus on repealing permissive open carry laws in key states and tightening state regulations that allow individuals to bring firearms into the polling booth and intimidate voters on Election Day.





UPDATE From Howie: Florida

After Igor sent his guest post, I contacted some of the best progressive candidates running for office in Florida this year. Why Florida? Remember the NRA massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. That was in 2018. Has anything changed? Please take a look at these perspectives and, if you like what you read, consider chipping in to the campaigns of these candidates by clicking on the 2020 Florida thermometer below.

Adam Christensen is running for Congress in north central Florida and he told me that "A little over 2 years ago my life and millions of others' were changed forever when we turned on our TVs and learned about the shooting in Parkland. Watching kids our age and just a few years younger stand up and say 'if adults won’t fix this then we will' kicked off a wave of activism and determination that has forever changed American politics. Right now millions of young people believe that they have to get involved and speak out because they 'have no other choice' and 'no one else is coming to save us.' There has been a huge shift in Florida to the understanding that any organization or company that actively allows and justifies death and destruction must be fought against. The NRA has stolen millions of dollars and thousands of lives from people across America. It’s time they be shown for what they are, Frauds."

  Joshua Hicks is also running for a Republican-held seat-- this one in the state legislature from Nassau and part of Duval counties. His opponent is the personification of why Florida's gun laws are still killing people. Hicks is also a supporter of Guns Down America. "Organizations like Guns Down America," he told me, "are successfully pushing for change from outside the political system. American companies are now increasingly taking their own actions on gun safety and using their clout to influence lawmakers. That fundamental shift is creating an environment where progress is happening on the state level, even in Florida, which NRA supporters have long deemed the 'Gunshine State.' After the 2018 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, the Republican-controlled legislature passed legislation that raised the minimum age to buy a rifle or shotgun from 18 to 21, that strengthened background checks and red flag laws, and that banned bump stocks. It was by no means a perfect bill, but it was a step in the right direction and it passed with widespread bipartisan support. State Representative Cord Byrd is the self proclaimed 'Florida Gun Lawyer' from Florida's 11th District who was one of the few Republicans who voted against the bill. I'm running against him for State House, District 11 to represent the people's interests-- not the NRA's-- and to protect our children and community from senseless gun violence. I believe defeating politicians like Byrd, who is bought by the NRA, is how we create change from inside the political system. There is still much work to be done when it comes to keeping our communities safe and strengthening gun laws in Florida."

Also up in Duval, Angela Nixon is the progressive running for the state legislature in Jacksonville. Moms Demand Action is backing her as a Gun Sense Champion candidate. She told me she's honored and takes that title very seriously, especially having lost her "favorite cousin Breon to gun violence by way of the school to prison pipeline. It’s very important for the Florida legislature to get serious about gun safety in our state. After the Parkland shooting policy was passed that allowed teachers to be deputized. Fortunately for us, the majority of the school districts opted out of what could have been an epic disaster. However, with the state slowly moving to preempt local governments on pretty much everything, it’s important we elect new leadership that believes and supports home rule and promotes common sense gun laws."

Bob Lynch is running for the legislature way in the southern part of the state-- also against an entrenched conservative. "Everyone has their jokes about Florida Man, but thank god he isn’t in an Open Carry State," he laughed with a sense of irony. "The NRA money moving around this state is a disgrace, but we have them on their heels. We made some progress following the Parkland massacre because it became politically untenable for Rick Scott’s Senate run so the GOP threw us a few bones. There is still a lot of work to do. It still remains easier to get a weapon of war in the state of Florida than it is to get a Covid-19 test. Voting for Democrats at the state level will ensure that competent empathetic human beings write our gun laws instead of the lunatic fringe of gun lobbyists. It is worth noting that as the debate on how to safely reopen our schools unfolds, the GOP has put more thought into how to arm our teachers rather than keep them safe from a medical standpoint."

Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick is running for Congress against one of the House's most corrupt members-- private prison bribe-taker Alcee Hastings, a useless waste of a Florida seat. This morning, she reminded me that "South Florida bore witness to one of the most horrific school shootings in recent memory. Fourteen high school students and three educators were murdered with over a dozen injuries. This tragedy sparked a nationwide debate about gun violence and saw different proposed solutions from both Republicans and Democrats. Lawmakers in Florida voted against statewide background checks and some legislators even suggested that teachers be provided guns to better 'protect' students against school shootings. Arming teachers will only serve to increase fear and violence in schools. Increased physical security measures such as metal detectors and increased law enforcement presence have not been proven to increase public safety, but instead make schools less welcoming for students, particularly students of color. If elected I will support universal background checks for all firearm purchases and I will champion legislation that requires those who purchase a firearm to attend a mandatory safety training course. I will not accept any campaign contributions from the gun industry and I denounce large corporations that fund this harmful industry. We must enact swift measures that prioritize the safety of the American people, not the interests of the gun lobby."

Colorado Was A Political Bright Spot On Tuesday-- Will It Be On Saturday As Well?

Tuesday night was pretty good for progressives in Colorado. Bernie won a lion's share of delegates and had the most votes. He and Elizabeth together had a majority from Coloradans:

• Bernie- 273,677 (36.3%)
• Status Quo Joe- 175,820 (23.2%)
• Bloomberg- 157,755 (20.8%)
• Elizabeth- 130,380 (17.2%)
• Tulsi- 8,586 (1.1%)

Voters wanted Health care for all, an economy that works for everyone and the Green New Deal. Wednesday morning the progressive in the Senate race, Andrew Romanoff, noted that "Exit polls found Democratic voters favored single-payer health care and major economic reform. In a poll released last week, a huge majority-- 93%-- also backed the Green New Deal. " That's especially important for Romanoff since Chuck Schumer is running Frackenlooper-- who is a status quo/anti-change candidate and way to the right of where Colorado voters are-- against him.

Andrew, who has been endorsed by Blue America sent an e-mail out to Colorado voters pointing out that all that progressive policy adhesion in his state is " good news not just for our campaign but for every American who wants to see real change in Washington" and pointing out that his bold progressive platform was "crafted not in the Senate cloakroom but here in Colorado. Last night’s results show our message is resonating."

Colorado's Senate primary is June 30 but this coming Saturday, March 7, Colorado Democrats will caucus to determine which of the 10 candidates will be on the ballot. Voters elect delegates to go to an April 18 assembly, determining who makes the primary ballot. Candidates need the backing of 30% of the delegates to get on the ballot.




What kind of a senator would Frackenlooper be? A really bad one-- like one of the worst, on a par with Trump-friendly right-wingers Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) and Joe Manchin (D-WV). Watch the video of him backing down on backing-- and signing-- a bill to ban high-capacity magazines. He told the sheriffs he never expected the bill to pass-- and suggested he might not have signed it if he’d known it would cause so much "commotion." He blamed members of his own his staff for making him do it! Is that what Frackenlooper means by leadership? No wonder he's so scared to debate Andrew Romanoff!

Tuesday night, Chuck Schumer got his pick for the North Carolina Senate pick, repeat loser, Cal Cunningham, who is likely to lose again in November. North Carolina voters also decided to vote against Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal and free state colleges by picking Status Quo Joe over Bernie. Coloradans are a savvier bunch and are less likely to let Chuck Schumer saddle them with a loser. Please consider contributing to Andrew Romanoff's campaign by clicking on the Blue America 2020 Senate thermometer on the right and giving what you can.

Friends of mine in Montana tell me that Governor Steve Bullock may be overly cautious sometimes but that he's way more progressive than he came across as on his disastrous and short-lived presidential run-- kind of the opposite of Frackenlooper, who's even worse than he appeared when he was on the national stage. So... despite Schumer popping a boner when he heard that Bullock's going to run after all, the country may well have just gotten a potential boon. One old friend in Bozeman told me not to worry about him being terrible in DC. "There's no way he'll ever be anything like Sinema or Machin or even Chris Coons... Did you know he was formerly a labor lawyer?

Obama seems to have persuaded him to do it-- and none too soon. The filing deadline is Monday. The state isn't as red as its prohibitive R+11 PVI would suggest. Last cycle Democrat Jon Testa beat multimillionaire Matt Rosendale 253,876 (50.3%) to 235,963 (48.8%) and even an unimaginably horrible, unelectable Democrat for the state's one congressional seat, Kathleen Williams managed to take 233,284 votes (46.2%) against Republican Greg Gianforte. In 2016, though Montanans sensibly wanted nothing to do with Hillary Clinton-- Trump beat her 274,120 (56.5%) to 174,521 (36.0%)-- Bullock himself was reelected governor 250,846 (50.2%) to 232,080 (46.4%). So, like in so many states, Hillary was a drag on the ticket but Bullock managed to win around 80,000 voters who refused to vote for her against Greg Gianforte.

Trump's approval rating has plummeted 18 points since he was inaugurated, so the Republicans' unremarkable incumbent, Steve Daines, isn't likely to be rescued by Trump. Daines, in fact, has been a real rubber stamp Trump-enabler.

We Have A Traitor In The White House... And Then There's The NRA, A Russian Front Operation!

In the interview above on CNN, you can watch Carl Bernstein explaining why Trump is "unravelling both factually and also temperamentally... [Trump] recognizes that there is, in this whistleblower's documents terrible evidence of the president's corruption, of his willingness to undermine the free electoral system in this country, to involve foreign powers in our election..."

The Washington Post reported that over 300 former national security and foreign policy officials have signed a statement warning that President Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine are a profound national security concern. They served both Democratic and Republican administrations and all support an impeachment inquiry by Congress to determine the facts. "To be clear, we do not wish to prejudge the totality of the facts or Congress' deliberative process. At the same time, there is no escaping that what we already know is serious enough to merit impeachment proceedings."

Trump may have changed his endless screeches of "No Collusion! No Collusion!" to "No Pressure! No Pressure!" but his NRA allies are drowning in collusion, as Mark Maremont and Julie Bykowicz of the Wall Street Journal pointed out yesterday. First off, the NRA "paid for lodging and travel of Russian nationals throughout 2015 and 2016, as part of a relationship that allowed foreign actors looking to influence the U.S. election, including now-convicted Maria Butina, to infiltrate the gun-rights group." Secondly, "NRA leaders traveled to Moscow in December 2015 partly on the NRA’s dime, even though some went there to pursue their own personal business opportunities. This raises questions... about whether they violated laws on how nonprofit funds can be used. The trip to Moscow gave Russians an opening to the organization as the election was ramping up, as well as access to other events involving Republican party leaders."

All this comes from a well-documented, 76-page report published by Senate Finance Committee Democrats, led by Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Looking At Gun Legislation by Nancy Ohanian

The Democrats’ report also documents a parallel effort by then-Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak to build relationships with NRA officers. It says the NRA delegation in Moscow met with more senior officials than previously known, including multiple oligarchs close to President Vladimir Putin, two sanctioned individuals, and a person Ms. Butina claimed was Mr. Putin’s campaign manager.

Ms. Butina, a Russian gun enthusiast, was sentenced to prison in April after pleading guilty to conspiring to influence U.S. politics. She and a Russian official named Alexander Torshin helped organize the 2015 Moscow trip and developed close relationships with NRA leaders, the report says.

As a nonprofit organization, the NRA is not supposed to use its funds for insiders’ personal benefit. The NRA already is being buffeted by allegations of spending abuses and cozy vendor dealings that have benefited CEO Wayne LaPierre and other top officials or their family members.

The Moscow travel “was an official trip undertaken so NRA insiders could get rich-- a clear violation of the principle that tax-exempt resources should not be used for personal benefit,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, of Oregon, one of the Democrats who has been probing the NRA’s ties to Moscow.

The report calls on Congress to “explore options to reform tax-exempt laws to protect against foreign threats,” but it is unlikely to provoke any immediate legislative impact. Republicans hold a majority of Senate seats, and the party has expressed its continued support of the NRA and has shown little interest in tightening restrictions on tax-exempt organizations.

The Democrats’ report includes new details about the relationship between the NRA and the Russian nationals, pushing back on the gun group’s early assertions that it was not working with them in an official way. The report documents formal communications with the Russian nationals and details how NRA funds ended up in a shell company set up by Ms. Butina to reimburse her for costs associated with the 2015 Moscow trip.

The gun group’s leaders introduced the Russian nationals to Republican Party leaders at its annual meetings and board meetings and helped them gain access to other conservatives at events such as the National Prayer Breakfast, the report says.

“NRA resources appear to have been used to pay for membership and registration fees to third-party events for the Russian nationals as well as to arrange for transit to and lodging for many of those events throughout 2015 and 2016,” the report says.

The report suggests at least somebody associated with the NRA had misgivings about Ms. Butina. After she was introduced to Donald Trump Jr. at the 2016 NRA annual meeting, this person texted the younger Mr. Trump: “I understand that someone introduced a Russian gal to you this week. I’ll fill you in this week but I would steer clear if she tries to reach out to you.”

The previously undisclosed text message was provided by the NRA, the report says, adding that the group didn’t identify the sender or respond to other questions about the message.

A spokesman for Donald Trump Jr. declined to comment.

The new report digs into the origins of the December 2015 NRA trip to Moscow, and what happened afterward. Although the NRA has claimed the members who traveled to Russia were not authorized to do so in an official capacity, the Democrats’ report provides evidence to the contrary.

The report says NRA then-President Allan Cors withdrew from the trip, but wrote Mr. Torshin, the Russian official, on his NRA letterhead designating others as representing “the NRA and our five million members.”

After the Treasury Department cautioned then-NRA Vice President Pete Brownell against meeting with U.S.-sanctioned Russians while abroad, the compliance director of Mr. Brownell’s private company assured him such meetings would be permissible because “he planned to do so as part of a cultural exchange in his official capacity as a member of the NRA’s delegation.”

Mr. Brownell agreed to go on the trip only because his gun-retail operation, Brownells Inc., had business interests in Russia, the report alleges. “I am not interested in attending if just an nra trip,” Mr. Brownell wrote his compliance director, saying the trip was “an opportunity to be hosted in Russia to broaden our business opportunities.”

A representative of Mr. Brownell didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Brownell and Ms. Butina traveled around Russia together for three days to explore business opportunities before the rest of the NRA delegation arrived in Moscow, the report says.

The Republican rebuttal says Mr. Brownell’s dual-purpose trip “appears to be entirely normal behavior for a CEO of a major firearms retailer, as the facts show Mr. Brownell started his December 2015 trip to Russia for this personal-professional purpose and then concluded it with an NRA-focused goodwill purpose.”

Mr. Brownell initially picked up some of the trip costs, including a $6,000 payment to Ms. Butina’s shell company, and shortly afterward was reimbursed by the NRA, the report says. When the trip came under scrutiny in early 2018, Mr. Brownell repaid $17,000 to the NRA as a way of “getting the trip off the NRA’s books,” Mr. Brownell’s counsel told investigators.

Only Pelosi-- Not McConnell and Not Trump-- Is Keeping An Assault Weapons Sales Ban From Passing The House

 A plurality of grassroots Democrats prefer AOC to Pelosi as party leader, according the a new poll

Yesterday, commenting on the House Dems' absurd impeachment shit-show being orchestrated by Pelosi and Nadler, a former top Capitol Hill staffer, wrote privately that "This is not just a disaster, but is starting to make me question the baseline, fundamental values of our leaders and THEIR commitment to the rule of law. They think this is about elections and popularity; well it isn’t, it’s about Americans all over asking whether anything in the constitution, the rule of law, or any of this matters at all or if it’s all just window dressing... and you know what, that’s depressing and dangerous. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but at this point I feel like these folks need to PROVE to me that they give one iota of shit about all the lines I’ve been fed about American democracy since the 5th grade."

I agree and there's no reason to not go on to discuss the impeachment shit-show he was commenting on. But Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer already did that-- and very well-- at Politico. So let's apply it to something else festering in Congress: the same game that decrepit old Pelosi and her craven leadership team are playing with assault weapons.

She's got Dave Cicilline's sales ban, H.R. 1296, bottled up in the Judiciary Committee. All but 25 Democrats in the House have signed on as co-sponsors. Pelosi and Cheri Bustos haven't. There's even a Republican co-sponsor. Several Republicans have said they will vote for it if it comes to the House but won't co-sponsor it. Although there are hard core NRA Democrats who will oppose it to their deaths-- like Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY), Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA), Ron Kind (New Dem-WI), Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ), Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) and Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), when Pelosi whines that she can't allow it to be brought to the floor until there are 218 co-sponsors, she's being completely disingenuous. In other words, she has absorbed Trumpism's #1 tenet of governance: Lie with alacrity and you'll get away with it.

Here's the math: 210 Democratic co-sponsors + Peter King (the Republican co-sponsor) + Pelosi + Bustos + non-co-sponsors who will vote yes if Pelosi says to-- Mike Thompson (Blue Dog-CA), Lauren Underwood (D-IL), Terri Sewell (New Dem-AZ), Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX) and Andy Kim (D-NJ) + even ONE of the Republicans who will vote for it, say Michael Turner, former mayor of Dayton, whose daughter was nearly shot in the recent GOP/NRA massacre and who publicly said he'd vote for Cicilline's bill, or Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) or Chris Smith (R-NJ) or Fred Upton (R-MI) or Brian Mast (R-FL) would not just take the score to the 218 she says she needs, but to 219 a vote over what she needs.

The background checks bill that passed the House last February, H.R. 8, only had 2 Democratic NO votes (Collin Peterson and Jared Golden) and it had 8 Republicans who voted for it:

• Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
• Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
• Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
• Will Hurd (R-TX)
• Peter King (R-NY)
• Brian Mast (R-FL)
• Chris Smith (R-NJ)
• Fred Upton (R-MI)

John Katko, who represents a blue district centered around Syracuse, New York and sometimes gets away with calling himself a "moderate," was away when the vote was called but he later issued a statement that had he been in DC, he would have voted against the bill.

Jeff Van Drew is an NRA Blue Dog

What's Pelosi's motivation for not whipping the assault weapons sales ban and passing it? NY Times reporter Sheryl Stolberg figured it out. "As Democrats make an aggressive push for new gun control legislation," she wrote, "they have made a calculated decision to stop short of pursuing their most ambitious goal: an assault weapons ban."

The overwhelming majority of House Democrats-- 211, seven shy of the 218 needed for passage-- are co-sponsoring legislation to ban military-style semiautomatic weapons, similar to the ban in effect from 1994 to 2004. But some centrist Democrats remain skittish about any proposal that keeps firearms from law-abiding citizens-- a frequent charge against Democrats by Republicans and gun rights groups-- making any such ban politically risky for moderates in Trump-friendly districts. In the Senate, it draws less support.

The split reveals just how complicated gun politics remain inside the Democratic Party, even as mass shootings are terrorizing the nation and the Twitter hashtag #DoSomething has captured the mounting public demands for Congress to act.

On the presidential campaign trail, Democrats like former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. are rallying behind an assault weapons ban, and Beto O’Rourke, the former congressman from Texas, has gone so far as to call for a mandatory government program to buy back the weapons of war. But on Capitol Hill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, have barely breathed a word about reviving the ban.

Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who sponsored the 1994 assault weapons ban and is one of its most ardent defenders, did not raise the issue when she spoke about gun safety alongside Mr. Schumer on Tuesday afternoon. “We don’t have the votes to pass it,” she later explained. [She was lying, either consciously or because Pelosi fed her a line of bullshit.]

“Let’s be honest,” said Representative David Cicilline of Rhode Island, the sponsor of the current assault weapons measure, who described himself as a “huge proponent” of the ban. “Every other bill that we’ve done tries to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. This is the one piece of legislation that keeps a particular weapon out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. A lot of people have enormous objections to that.”

...The push for background checks instead of an assault weapons ban makes political sense for Democrats, who see it as a winning issue. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found 89 percent of Americans in favor of universal background checks. While a majority also supported an assault weapons ban, the support was much thinner-- just 56 percent.

The 1994 law, which passed as part of a broader crime bill championed by Mr. Biden, then a senator, banned the sale of 19 specific weapons that have the features of guns used by the military, including semiautomatic rifles and certain types of shotguns and handguns.

It also outlawed magazines that could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, while allowing people who already had such weapons to keep them. But it had a sunset provision, and Congress refused to renew it when it expired in 2004, in part because Democrats were nervous that it could cost them re-election.

The politics have shifted since then, especially after a summer of deadly mass shootings.

Some Democrats in surprising corners of the country have also embraced a ban, even though the political reality is that Mr. Trump would never sign such a measure.

Two moderate Democrats who beat Republicans for House seats last year-- Representatives Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey and Jason Crow of Colorado-- spoke out last month in favor of a ban, with an opinion article in USA Today. Both are military veterans, and Mr. Crow ran on an aggressive platform of combating gun violence.

Even some Republicans have signed on to the idea. Among them is Representative Michael R. Turner, Republican of Ohio, whose district includes Dayton, where a gunman killed nine people outside a bar last month. Representative Brian Mast, Republican of Florida, where a 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland galvanized a youth movement for gun safety, also supports a ban.

But for centrists like Representative Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Kendra Horn of Oklahoma-- both of whom also flipped seats in districts Mr. Trump won-- supporting an assault weapons ban could be politically toxic.

Representative Henry Cuellar, Democrat of Texas, who enjoys the backing of the National Rifle Association and is facing a primary challenge from the left, does not support a ban.

“I am for reasonable gun reform,” Mr. Cuellar said in a recent interview. “But I’m not going to take guns away from people like they want to do.”

The bill does not advocate "taking guns away from people." Cuellar always uses Republican Party/Fox News talking points to frame his reactionary agenda. He's one of the worst scumbags in the Democratic Party and what good is Pelosi if she lets garbage like him-- and worthless coward Kendra Horn-- dictate which votes are allowed on the floor and which votes have to be killed in committee? Democrats should remove Pelosi as Speaker before she does irreparable damage to the party's chances to win in 2020.

Eva Putzova is the progressive Democrat running against an incumbent-- former Republican state legislator Tom O'Halleran, currently pretending to be a semi-Democrat (as a Blue Dog) and, of course, vehemently against banning the sale of assault weapons, something Eva is just as vehemently in favor of. "Who," she asked, "benefits from the assault weapon sales? It’s not the people of this country but corporations who sell them. I can’t imagine being a Representative, seeing reports on mass shootings terrorizing our communities almost daily and doing nothing. Standing on the sideline and refusing to co-sponsor the assault weapons sales is a total failure of leadership."

Republicans Deserve The Blame They Get-- But There Are Still 25 House Dems-- Led By DCCC Chair Cheri Bustos-- Who Refuse To Back An Assault Weapons Ban

Three freshmen members of Congress who no one in their right mind will ever accuse of being courageous are Kim Schier (New Dem-WA), Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA) and Colin Allred (D-TX). Schrier's district is 72.3% suburban, the rest being about equally urban and rural. Luria's is over 95% urban and suburban; just 4.5% rural. And Allred's is 100% urban and suburban-- no rural precincts at all. On Friday Schier, Luria and Allred became the 209th, 210th and 211th members of Congress to sign on as co-sponsors to Dave Cicilline's bill to ban the sale of assault weapons, H.R. 1296. Pelosi has had the bill bottled up in the House Judiciary Committee since February 15. It took 3 more GOP/NRA gun massacres to get cowards like Schier, Luria and Allred to support it. I'm sure they feel like they're heroes now. The bill even had it's first official Republican co-sponsor, Peter King (August 16), before they-- pardon the metaphor, pulled the trigger. In all, 20 members (19 Dems, almost all of them New Dems and Blue Dogs) signed on after the spate of massacres, during the summer recess. Most of them represent suburban districts where support for banning assault weapons is more than just a majority; it's now an issue that will help determine who wins in 2020 and who loses.

Opposition to banning assault weapons still exists with some significance in backward rural areas. Few of the cowards who signed on represent backward rural areas. Better late than never. There are still 25 Democrats refusing to back the bill-- primarily Blue Dogs like top NRA-champions Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX) and Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN), "former" Republican Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ), DCCC chair Cheri Bustos (New Dem-IL), Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK), Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY), Ron Kind (New Dem-WI), Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ), Lauren Underwood (IL), Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX), Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA), Sharice Davids (New Dem-KS), Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT), Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL), Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC), Lizzie Fletcher (New Dem-TX), Andy Kim (Suicidal-NJ), Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI) and Xochitl Torres-Small (Blue Dog-NM).

A new poll for ABC News and the Washington Post was released yesterday that shows widespread support for gun control, including the assault weapons sales ban. Mike DeBonis and Emily Guskin wrote for The Post that "Americans across party and demographic lines overwhelmingly support expanded background checks for gun buyers and allowing law enforcement to temporarily seize weapons from troubled individuals." They wrote that Señor Trumpanzee and Republicans "face fresh pressure to act" but forgot to mention all the Blue Dogs and New Dems still sitting on the fence. Instead they point out that the poll shows that "More Americans say they trust congressional Democrats over Trump to handle the nation’s gun laws, 51 percent to 36 percent, with independents siding with Democrats by a 17-point margin-- a divide that could have political ramifications for the 2020 presidential and congressional elections."

On The Fence by Nancy Ohanian

Trump, the NRA, Blue Dogs and Republicans will no doubt put up a weak and useless background check bill and say "ok, happy now? It won't do any good." And they're right; it won't. The 89% of Americans who support expanding federal background checks include massive majorities of Republicans, of gun owners and even of lunatic fringe white evangelicals. Right now McConnell is the main problem, saying he won't allow the Senate to vote on anything until Trump agrees to back it.

Cicilline: "This is a pattern. They sort of hope time passes and people forget about it. The good news is, the American people are not going to let them forget about it. They’re going to demand that Congress and the Senate do something to reduce gun violence in this country." Sloppily, DeBonis and Guskin reported that "A growing number of Democrats-- and a few Republicans-- have signed on to a Cicilline-authored bill reimposing a version of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004. The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing Sept. 25 on the bill-- a significant step for Democratic leaders who have long treated an assault weapons ban as too politically risky." They reporters are incorrect about "a few Republicans" signing on to Cicilline's bill. Several have agreed to vote for it on the House floor but only one-- Peter King-- is a co-sponsor. "In a sign of the changing politics, several of those joining the assault weapons bill are freshmen Democrats who won suburban districts previously represented by Republicans. “I don’t really see any reason for ordinary citizens to own weapons of war,” said Rep. Susan Wild (New Dem-PA), who represents a moderate Lehigh Valley district."

The obstacles continue to be Republicans who argue that the Democratic bills would infringe on law-abiding gun owners’ constitutional rights while doing little to prevent the actual causes of mass shootings. That is a perspective shared with a highly motivated slice of the party’s conservative base and promoted by its most aggressive advocacy group, the NRA.

“My concern is that what’s being proposed is not going to solve the root-cause problem,” Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) told reporters in mid-August when asked about red flag laws.

But there is a rising concern in the GOP that the party is putting itself at risk if it doesn’t take some kind of action to address the epidemic of mass bloodshed.

“If we’re not willing to do the common-sense stuff, probably legislation will occur that we’ll regret, that will actually, I think, infringe upon Second Amendment rights down the road, so I’m going to be one that’s going to look to try to do something,” Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) told reporters Friday.

Several Republicans have expressed openness to federal legislation on red flag laws, which are also known as “extreme-risk protection orders,” including such influential lawmakers as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (SC) and Sen. Marco Rubio (FL).

Daines suggested instead that juveniles who commit serious crimes or make felonious threats be prevented from purchasing weapons as adults-- a proposal that is getting serious consideration for inclusion in the White House package.

ABC News added that some groups are more likely to support gun control than others. "Among those who are very or somewhat worried that a mass shooting could occur in their community, 67 percent support banning the sale of assault weapons. That drops to 39 percent support among those who are less concerned about an attack occurring in their area. There are other big differences among groups when it comes to the assault weapons question. Women are 20 percentage points more likely than men to support banning the sale of these weapons, 65 percent versus 45 percent. While support is higher in urban areas than elsewhere, there’s a broad gap between urban women (of whom 73 percent support a ban) and urban men (of whom 52 percent do). And among political independents, 72 percent of women favor a ban, compared with 43 percent of men. Education is also a sharp divider. Support for banning assault weapons rises with more education, ranging from 72 percent of those with postgraduate degrees to 46 percent of those with no more than a high school diploma. But here, too, gender influences attitudes. Among women who haven’t gone beyond high school, 55 percent back an assault weapons ban; among their male counterparts, it’s 38 percent. Support for a ban reaches 71 percent among blacks, compared with 52 percent among whites. It differs by age, ranging from 63 percent among seniors to 49 percent among young adults. (Perhaps counterintuitively, support for banning assault weapons sales is higher among seniors even though they tend to be more conservative politically.) And politics is a very prominent factor, as likely will soon be on display in Washington. Eighty-one percent of Democrats support an assault weapons ban, compared with 55 percent of independents and 33 percent of Republicans."