Read on Twitter
A few quick thoughts about the New York Attorney General's lawsuit for fraud against the #NRA and the allegations that the suit is politically motivated. There are important legal and policy issues at play... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nra-lapierre-ny-attorney-general/2020/08/06/8e389794-d794-11ea-930e-d88518c57dcc_story.html
As you may know, the NRA has filed a countersuit claiming that the New York AG is violating their First Amendment rights and has targeted them for political reasons.
In the criminal context, similar arguments have failed. So long as the defendant actually broke the law, it doesn't matter that police were motivated to retaliate for constitutionally protected speech. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/nieves-v-bartlett/
To be clear, that's a troubling legal development. We give a lot of discretion to law enforcement, including state AGs, and that discretion could allow them to target basically anyone for any reason. That power should make us rethink what conduct we make unlawful.
I'm no expert in non-profit law, but I would be surprised if civil enforcement of those laws were held to a higher constitutional standard than criminal enforcement.
So I don't expect the NRA can overcome the NY fraud suit simply by saying that they were targeted for their views
So I don't expect the NRA can overcome the NY fraud suit simply by saying that they were targeted for their views
But even if the NY AG's law suit is legally permissible, does that make it a good policy decision?
Should we just shrug our shoulders about politically-motivated law enforcement?
And don't the reports about the AG fundraising off the enforcement announcement make this worse?
Should we just shrug our shoulders about politically-motivated law enforcement?
And don't the reports about the AG fundraising off the enforcement announcement make this worse?
As someone who studies prosecutors and politics, I take these concerns seriously.
We elect prosecutors, including New York's Attorney General, and so it's impossible to disentangle politics from enforcement.
Even so, that doesn't mean we should be complacent about these Qs.
We elect prosecutors, including New York's Attorney General, and so it's impossible to disentangle politics from enforcement.
Even so, that doesn't mean we should be complacent about these Qs.
There's one other important thing to keep in mind here--the NRA case isn't just about politics. It's also about publicity.
There was widespread reporting on financial improprieties at the organization before the New York AG announcement.
There was widespread reporting on financial improprieties at the organization before the New York AG announcement.
We often see law enforcement officials act differently--often more aggressively--in high profile cases.
There are reasons to have more aggressive enforcement in those cases--some good and some bad.
There are reasons to have more aggressive enforcement in those cases--some good and some bad.
Good reasons to have more aggressive enforcement include deterrence (it spreads the word not to do certain things) and ensuring legitimacy of the justice system (ignoring high profile law breaking can corrode norms of following the law).
But law enforcement can also treat high profile cases differently because those cases get them publicity. The publicity shows them aggressively pursuing high profile cases, sending a message that they are good at their jobs. (That's good for reelection.)
So where does that leave the #NRA case? The allegations against the NRA leadership seem pretty bad, and so I would hope that they are investigated. So long as the NY AG is pursuing similar allegations against other groups, then I'm not too concerned. But we just don't know.
