Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Like with Donald Trump, could the influence of the National Rifle Association be curved in court because of corrupt activities rather than just in the political sector? A civil corruption trial of the National Rifle Association's top executives began on Monday in New York. Attorney General Letitia James has accused top NRA leaders of misusing more than $64 million in cash donated by its members.

The lawsuit claims the funds were used to pay for private jets, vacations, and to fund no-show jobs for friends and allies according to reporting from NPR, citing the charge. Wayne LaPierre, the longtime leader of the NRA, is one of the high-profile defendants in the case. He announced his resignation from the NRA just last Friday in advance of the beginning of the trial.

Over the next six weeks or so, Justice Joel Cohen of the Supreme Court of the State of New York and a jury will decide the fate of the NRA, the nation's largest gun rights group. Joining me now to discuss the suit and its national implications is Stephen Gutowski, founder of The Reload, an independent publication focused on firearms policy and politics. Stephen, thanks for joining us today. Welcome to WNYC.

Stephen Gutowski: Hey, thank you for having me.

Brian Lehrer: You write, "The civil suit from New York Attorney General Letitia James alleges misappropriation of funds on a grand scale by the group's leadership." What does AG James want if she proves her case?

Stephen Gutowski: Well, initially, she wanted to dissolve the NRA altogether, but that was taken off the table by the judge. Now she's asking for a court overseer to be appointed and for leadership to be barred from ever working at a nonprofit in the state of New York again.

Brian Lehrer: According to internal documents leaked to The Wall Street Journal, I see LaPierre spent about $275,000 on ZEGNA clothing from 2004 to 2017. That's a lot of clothing. It may seem a little glib to talk about clothing, but GQ reports that LaPierre was caught because he tried to charge his ZEGNA suits to Ackerman McQueen, the NRA's former ad agency. The NRA is currently suing the firm for not fully justifying its fee. Can you take us one step further and explain that part of the case?

Stephen Gutowski: Yes, certainly. There was really kind of an arrangement at the NRA between its leaders and Ackerman McQueen where oftentimes Ackerman McQueen would pay for things like expensive suits or even there was at one point a plan to try and buy Wayne LaPierre's house using NRA money funneled through Ackerman McQueen. Once the NRA got wind there was going to be an investigation, that's when things soured between them and Ackerman because they wanted to say that this was Ackerman's fault.

Keep in mind this was a decades-long arrangement. This was not something that had just sprung up before this investigation started. That's sort of the crux of this entire case is this arrangement where personal expenses were funneled through the NRA via their media contractor Ackerman McQueen.

Brian Lehrer: I wonder how many Trump ties $275,000 would buy, but that's a different show. Wait, isn't the NRA a not-for-profit organization? How is it possible that all of this was going on when we know that nonprofits have to disclose certain financial information?

Stephen Gutowski: Yes. Well, they had this arrangement with Ackerman McQueen where these expenses would come through as just a line item, or I should say a flat fee. There were no line items associated with it, so they'd pay Ackerman McQueen maybe $40 million a year. A lot of these kinds of expenses were rolled up into that, and they weren't reported to NRA membership or publicly in a line-item basis, so there was no way to know if you were an outsider exactly what was going on with these sorts of payments.

Brian Lehrer: I see that the lawsuit targets LaPierre, the NRA itself as an organization, Wilson "Woody" Phillips, a former NRA treasurer and chief financial officer, and John Frazer, corporate secretary and general counsel. I think I've got all the names, but I also see that Joshua Powell, a former top executive at the NRA, has already admitted wrongdoing and agreed to pay $100,000. What did he admit to, and did he, what we would call, flip and is testifying now against Wayne LaPierre and the others?

Stephen Gutowski: Yes, he did flip. He will be testifying, although he did that before this settlement was announced. He was accused of this same sort of corruption here where, in his case, I believe he was having the NRA hire relatives to work there. Actually, the $100,000-- One of the interesting things about this case is it's more like a consumer protection case.

He's not going to have to pay New York State or anything like that. He's going to have to pay the National Rifle Association because that's who he defrauded effectively, and it's the same thing for the rest of the people accused. If LaPierre loses his arguments, he's actually going to have to pay back the NRA for the money that was diverted to him.

Brian Lehrer: By the way, the brand that Wayne LaPierre allegedly spent all that money $275,000 on, shows you how much of a fashion maven I am not. I was reading it phonetically as ZEGNA. I'm told by people much more familiar with runways, I guess than I am, that it's "Zenia" so those of you who have "Zenia" clothes and think, "What's that ZEGNA that he's talking about?" I apologize.

Any listeners who are NRA members want to call up because you're sort of the victims here, allegedly. Do you feel duped by the NRA because of the way some of your dues money and other contributions was apparently used? Does it make you feel any differently about gun rights as an issue? Does it make you want your money back? Does it make you skeptical of all politics, even interest groups that you agree with or that you think represent you?

Any NRA members happen to be listening right now and want to chime in on this, or anybody else, maybe from the gun control, gun regulation activist camp on the implications for policy, not just for the NRA's finances or existence? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Call or text as we talk to Stephen Gutowski, founder of The Reload, an independent publication focused on firearms policy and politics.

Since you're not a New York legal analyst, you are a firearms politics and policy analyst, I don't know if you'll have anything to say to this, but this seems [unintelligible 00:07:48] in a way with a civil fraud trial that's in court now from Letitia James against Donald Trump where the penalty could be that the Trump Organization can't do business in New York anymore.

This is a civil fraud case as well against the NRA and its leaders in which she was going for banning the NRA from being an organization anymore. We see a certain kind of aggressiveness on this kind of legal track from the New York State Attorney General. Have you given that any thought?

Stephen Gutowski: Yes. Well, certainly, Donald Trump sees these two things as connected. He's talked about that in the past when he's attacked Letitia James for her lawsuit against him. He's connected these two suits and accused her of being politically motivated. Obviously, the NRA has also accused her of being politically motivated. To be fair, she did call them a terrorist organization when she was running for attorney general and promised to investigate them, so I wouldn't say that politics is absent from this situation.

At the same time, that doesn't necessarily mean that her allegations are incorrect. Certainly, politics is well involved in this situation for sure. The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country, certainly on the issue of guns. At the same time, Letitia James has a pretty good case built up here. I think she has a pretty good chance of winning on the merits of the case itself, and the judge, I think, also recognizes the politics at play.

He denied that request to dissolve the organization because he felt it wouldn't be in the best interest of the members who are supposed to be the harmed party here, but at the same time, he warned the NRA's lawyers that the allegations that have been laid out are very-- he views them as very significant and very serious. He seems to be aware of all the politics involved and handling that I think fairly well, to be honest with you, to this point, at least from my point of view.

Brian Lehrer: This is WNYC FM HD and AM New York, WNJT-FM 88.1 Trenton, WNJP 88.5 Sussex, WNJY 89.3 Netcong, and WNJO 90.3 Toms River. We are New York and New Jersey Public Radio and live streaming at wnyc.org. A few more minutes on this case that's in court in New York now against the NRA. We'll get to its implications if you think there are any for gun policy in the United States, but first, let me take a call from Bob in Riverside, Connecticut, who says he is an NRA member. Bob, thanks for calling in. You're on WNYC.

Bob: Good morning, Brian, and thank you for taking the call. I'm a life member of the NRA. I have been for over 60 years now. Unfortunately, the organization has [unintelligible 00:11:01] both morally and financially bankrupt, but it is still the premier firearms tactical and safety organization. I think it's been a leader in that for decades and done very well.

I think I was eight years or nine years old when I first started shooting at a day camp and got my marksmen in Bar One and Bar Two. One thing [unintelligible 00:11:31] learned had ingrained firearms safety. There are hunter safety courses and [unintelligible 00:11:37], and they've done magnificent work there. I went on to become a gunnery officer in the Navy, where arms safety was important as well. [laughs]

Brian Lehrer: Yes. Do you think that they've changed over the years in this respect? Because you raise a great point that there are those other kinds of things, like firearms safety, that the NRA has traditionally done. I think most Americans now think of it in terms of the sheer politics of pushing the Second Amendment as far as it can go and like Wayne LaPierre standing up there after the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre and saying, "The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." That kind of thing. Do you think it's changed in your long membership time period, and does that matter to you one way or the other?

Bob: It does matter, and that is the morally bankrupt portion of the NRA that has made itself most visible. I think that LaPierre has been an embarrassment to the NRA for decades, certainly in my opinion. But of course, they didn't ask me. [chuckles] We get to vote on directors each year, which is a life member issue, but that is a slate that's presented [unintelligible 00:13:06] in many corporate environments is pretty much-- they get elected. There's not a lot of competition. It is a slate that is selected by the existing leadership, and so it tends to [unintelligible 00:13:25] perpetuate, is the word.

Brian Lehrer: Yes.

Bob: It perpetuates the--

Brian Lehrer: The politics of the people.

Bob: The politics of the bad ideas just get pursued on and on and on. It's an enormous momentum. In my own opinion, I believe they went way, way, way overboard on the--

Brian Lehrer: Second Amendment.

Bob: They started acting on the Second Amendment issues. They call it the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is there. It is one of the-- we call them the Bill of Rights, but actually, it's a bill of limitations on the government.

Brian Lehrer: On the federal government. That's true. We could get into a whole other conversation about what that well-regulated Militia Clause of the Second Amendment meant, but that's beyond the scope of our conversation today. Bob, thanks for your call. I really, really appreciate it. Stephen, do you think there are a lot of Bob in Riverside, Connecticut, out there? Or does he represent a certain older generation of NRA members? There are a lot of younger members who are all go, go, go, no limits on gun rights.

Stephen Gutowski: Yes, I think it's probably the latter. I will say, obviously, when you have that many members as an organization, which at one point they were over 5 million, now they're back down closer to 4.2, which maybe goes to your earlier point about how some of the members have felt about this corruption scandal. They've lost over a million members, and they've had to slash things like--

Brian Lehrer: Oh, they have.

Stephen Gutowski: Yes, and they've had to slash funding for things like their gun safety program, which does still, even today, lead the nation as far as the number of trainers out there. In fact, I'm a NRA certified trainer. It's really one of the only ways you can become a gun safety trainer in the United States. They've had to cut back on things like that, which are very popular with all sorts of different members like the caller we just had.

Even if they disagree with the politics, you will often hear people praising the gun safety efforts of the NRA. Obviously, you can look at some polling that indicates that members at large are more open to gun control efforts than the NRA. I will note, though, that after Sandy Hook, after that speech that you mentioned, which has been obviously very controversial in the public, they actually saw their largest increase in membership ever. That's when they reached five million for the first time.

I would say that there are certainly a lot of people who do agree with that approach. It probably does limit their appeal to a certain section of gun owners like we just experienced, but I don't know that there was ever a large movement inside of the NRA to moderate on that issue.

Brian Lehrer: Here's a text from a listener who says, "Most people involved in the firearms community knew the NRA was corrupt and lame. We support the Gun Owners of America, that's a different group, and the FPC," you'll have to tell me what that stands for, "Who," the listener writes, "Actually challenge gun control laws in court and defend the American public when an unjust or unconstitutional law or arrest is made."

Are the Gun Owners of America or the other group mentioned here, FPC, kind of rising as the NRA is fading? It really goes to my bottom-line question in this whole segment and around this whole trial. That is, are there any implications for the balance of power in terms of gun rights and gun regulation as the NRA gets diminished by this lawsuit and its revelations, or not really?

Stephen Gutowski: Yes, those are great questions. I think this is a great contrast. I'm glad this came up because really what you see more of inside the gun rights movement, specifically the activist types, is the idea that the NRA has been too weak, has been too willing to compromise. This is often the selling point for other groups like Gun Owners of America or Firearms Policy Coalition, which is FPC.

Those groups have even grown significantly as the NRA has declined over the last five years or so. However, they have not grown to the point where they make up for that decline. The NRA, at its peak, was something like a $400 million organization between all of its different legal entities if you combine them. Whereas a lot of these other groups, they really top out in recent years around $15 million. They tend to be more focused on specific areas.

Like Firearms Policy Coalition focuses much more exclusively on legal efforts, which now there's a good reason for that, given the Supreme Court had a landmark case recently. The NRA goes to lots of different areas where you don't have other groups working. They, even still today, are larger than every other gun rights group combined, even after this precipitous decline in membership and revenue.

Yes, if they continue on that trajectory and they keep going down the spiral where they may end up in bankruptcy, end up being insolvent, it's still going to have a significant impact on gun policy. We could already see this to some extent when in 2022 Congress passed the first new expansion of the list of people who can't own firearms. Now, it was a relatively minor expansion compared to previous generations, but it's the first one in 30 years. That passed at the moment where the NRA has been having this chaos.

Brian Lehrer: Let me take one more call from a former NRA member, we'll find out why, and then we're going to run out of time. Rowland in Albany, you're on WNYC. Hi, Rowland.

Rowland: Hi, how are you doing? When I talked to your screener, I was shocked to find that she knew what a bump stock was. First woman I have ever met who knew that. I was an NRA member--

Brian Lehrer: Don't ever underestimate the women who work for this show. Go ahead.

Rowland: Brian, you rock, and they rock. I quit the NRA after Sandy Hook, and in part because of their position on the bump stock bill which passed through Congress. I'm a hunter. I'm a Black guy from the South. I hunt, my kids hunt. I've taught them to shoot. There are other groups that can handle gun safety, but the NRA has become so powerful that most of the gun legislation was written by NRA lobbyists. I'm a lobbyist. I know how this works. You can't pay money to contributions.

Their power on Capitol Hill was just far too much for any one organization. There were questions about the spending before this. I think power corrupts and that's what power corrupts absolutely, and Wayne LaPierre has been riding that horse way too long. When I was an army officer, I was at the basic combat training company Fort Jackson. When you look at rifles that we use in the army, the M16 counts as the military version of the AR-15.

Most of our soldiers would never get a chance and the opportunity to use a rifle on automatic fire because when you use a rifle on automatic fire, you're giving up accuracy for firepower. The existence of automatic rifles even in combat situations is very, very limited. For that to be available to the general public and even when they were outlawed, the bump stock law comes in and then NRA says, "Well, this is not really an automatic rifle," but effectively, you it add to the back of a single-shot AR-15, and suddenly, you fire 30 rounds in 30 seconds. That cannot possibly be the intent of any of the organizations with gun safety.

Brian Lehrer: In short, because for me, even as a man living where I live in New York City, I might not be so familiar with bump stocks, but my understanding of it is that, and I think this is what you were just describing, it can convert a semi-automatic rifle, where you still have to pull the trigger each time to shoot, to an automatic, where you can just hold the trigger and multiple bullets will come out. How close is that?

Rowland: That's exactly on point. I wrote several articles, and you can find them online about this. Essentially, it takes the automatic rifle law which made them illegal and totally circumvented it by allowing an additional piece to be added to a single-shot AR-15 so that it's now an automatic rifle. It's not the [crosstalk].

Brian Lehrer: Go ahead, Stephen. Go ahead. Chime in.

Stephen Gutowski: Just on the technical point there, a bump stock allows a semi-automatic to mimic automatic fire. You still have to actually press the trigger each time you fire. What it does is allows you to do that much more quickly than you could using traditional shooting techniques because you can bump fire without a stock. Certainly, the NRA did oppose the legislation to ban bump stocks in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting which featured bump stocks, obviously.

They did support Donald Trump's executive branch approach to banning them through the ATF through rulemaking, which has since been found unconstitutional. It's been mostly the other gun rights groups that have been fighting that fight in the courts.

Brian Lehrer: Rowland, thank you so much for your call. We appreciate it. We're going to leave it there with Stephen Gutowski, who reports on gun policy and gun politics. He's founder of The Reload, an independent publication that focuses on those things on the trial ongoing in New York right now of Wayne LaPierre, the NRA itself, and a few other NRA members, civil fraud trial brought by New York State Attorney General, Letitia James. Stephen, thanks a lot. Really appreciate this.

Stephen Gutowski: Thanks for having me.

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.