I’m seeing spots! Actually, it’s lots and lots of dots! I’ve been seeing them for several years, and their number is increasing, though the connections between them have seemed confusing or altogether missing. Then in the last two weeks’ dizzying rush of shock-and-awe headlines and breaking news, finally a name appeared which began to make sense out of the galaxy of random dots: Maria Butina. Ms. Butina is the woman you’ve all heard of by now: alleged Russian spy, worked with Aleksandr Torshin, began traveling between Russia and the U.S. in 2011, moved to the U.S. on a student visa in 2016 and became a graduate student at American University in D.C., allegedly used sex among other weapons to carry out her assignments, founded a Russian gun-rights organization called Right to Bear Arms, and along with Torshin established a “cooperative relationship” between Right to Bear Arms and the National Rifle Association (NRA). Aha! Those random dots suddenly seemed far less random and more a part of an intricate pattern woven of Russian involvement in our democracy, NRA control over our politicians, Russian and NRA control over our “president,” and our Congress’s inaction on pretty much everything.
In a Guardian article published on July 26, 2018, Jon Swaine names a Russian billionaire alleged to be Ms. Butina’s “funder”: Konstantin Nikolaev, whose wife Svetlana Nikolaeva is “the head of a gun company that supplies sniper rifles to the Russian military and intelligence services.” Swaine states the finding that Mr. Nikolaev allegedly invested money in his wife’s gun company “sheds further light on the links forged in recent years between America’s powerful gun lobby and well-connected Russians.” Add those allegations to the allegation by US prosecutors that “Butina’s activities were directed by Alexander Torshin, a senior Russian state banker and an NRA member,” and I think we’re starting to see some lines connecting a few of those dots.
While Ms. Butina rests in her jail cell, investigators are pursuing charges of “illegally operating as a foreign agent . . . working to infiltrate the NRA as part of an attempt to influence the Republican party and establish secret backchannels with American politicians” (also from the Swaine article). It should be completely unsurprising that she has denied all charges. Meanwhile, we should perhaps take a moment to review the history of the organization which she is accused of infiltrating and using as a backchannel to connect the Republican Party with the Kremlin.
According to the NRA’s official website, the National Rifle Association was founded in 1871 by Union Civil War veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate, who expressed dismay over “the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops.” Contrary to a revisionist claim that the NRA was formed to drive out the Ku Klux Klan and help freed slaves defend themselves against racist attacks (a claim debunked by Snopes and other fact checkers), the real purpose of the new organization was “promoting the safe and proper use of firearms” (Ron Elving, NPR). “The idea was to educate a new generation of marksmen, whether for war or hunting or recreational target shooting” (Elving).
In our country’s earlier years, there was little or no debate about the necessity of gun use in everyday life, since guns were essential for survival during the frontier era. According to Mr. Elving, debate over the necessity of gun ownership began in earnest after four of our presidents were assassinated. During those years between the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy, the NRA supported restrictions on gun availability, particularly for convicted felons and people with mental illness. Each time a new conversation arose, the NRA wanted to be involved but consistently worked with Congress and the White House toward implementing and enforcing prudent restrictions.
That was then. According to Ron Elving , change began in 1971 when an NRA member who had a large cache of illegal weapons was killed by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. The NRA’s first lobbying group, Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), was formed in 1975 under the leadership of “Texas lawyer . . . Harlon Carter, an immigration hawk who had headed the Border Patrol in the 1950s” (Elving). Carter, a “hard-liner, ” made the statement, “You don’t stop crime by attacking guns. You stop crime by stopping criminals.” Hmmm, why does that sound so familiar?
The ensuing power struggle culminated in a coup at the 1977 NRA convention, resulting in Carter’s rise to the position of executive vice president and his appointment of fellow hard-liner Neal Knox to replace him as head of the ILA. Elving says, “The new marching orders were to oppose all forms of gun control across the board and lobby aggressively for gun owners’ rights in Congress and the legislatures.” Elving adds, “Carter proclaimed his group would be ‘so strong and so dedicated that no politician in America, mindful of his political career, would want to challenge our legitimate goals.’”
The powerful gun-lobby organization we see today bears little resemblance to the NRA that aimed to train hunters and a great resemblance to the new NRA born in 1977. In the words of Snopes writers, today’s NRA has “a single overriding purpose: to promote and defend the Second Amendment right to bear arms.” I’ve written before about their concept of what the Second Amendment actually says, so I’ll let that point rest for now and just mention the fear tactics shamelessly employed to garner support for their political agenda, especially under the leadership of executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, who famously wrote an editorial dated February 13, 2013, where he said among other things:
The president [Obama] flagrantly defies the 2006 federal law ordering the construction of a secure border fence along the entire Mexican border. So the border today remains porous not only to people seeking jobs in the U.S., but to criminals whose jobs are murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping. Ominously, the border also remains open to agents of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Numerous intelligence sources have confirmed that foreign terrorists have identified the southern U.S. border as their path of entry into the country.
When the next terrorist attack comes, the Obama administration won’t accept responsibility. Instead, it will do what it does every time: blame a scapegoat and count on Obama’s “mainstream” media enablers to go along.
A heinous act of mass murder—either by terrorists or by some psychotic who should have been locked up long ago—will be the pretext to unleash a tsunami of gun control.
No wonder Americans are buying guns in record numbers right now, while they still can and before their choice about which firearm is right for their family is taken away forever.
Mr. LaPierre goes on to say,
Responsible Americans realize that the world as we know it has changed. We, the American people, clearly see the daunting forces we will undoubtedly face: terrorists, crime, drug gangs, the possibility of Euro-style debt riots, civil unrest or natural disaster.
Gun owners are not buying firearms because they anticipate a confrontation with the government. Rather, we anticipate confrontations where the government isn’t there—or simply doesn’t show up in time.
Well, let’s just start right here with the horse’s mouth, or perhaps some more southern body part. Why is it that, although no serious proposal has ever come before our congress to ban guns, the gun clutchers by default begin every conversation by defending themselves against the plot to “ban all the guns”? I think the answer to that question is right here: that’s the brainwashing they’re receiving from the horse’s mouth.
The executive vice president of the NRA decries the lack of a “secure border fence along the entire Mexican border,” and–voila!–his newly purchased Republican presidential candidate makes building a wall the centerpiece of his campaign. Mr. LaPierre makes terrifying claims about immigrants who cross that border, or who might cross it in the absence of sufficient security, and guess who launches his campaign with absurd and unfounded claims about Mexican immigrants and continues to attack immigrants in every inhumane way he can think of? That’s right! The NRA-purchased “president,” who assures the organization that its $30,000,000 donation has purchased them “a true friend and champion in the White House.” Even Donald Trump is smart enough to know that if he doesn’t give them their money’s worth, they might buy a replacement in 2020.
So how much money does the NRA spend on politicians, and where does all of that money come from? As usual, the answer depends on whom you ask. If you ask the NRA leadership (and why would you?), the answer as of October 2017 was $3.5 million, according to PolitiFact. Well, that can’t be right. PolitiFact, however, says it is actually an accurate number but accounts for only one small pot among many from which the NRA draws to wield their vast influence. That figure accounts for only direct contributions to currently serving members of congress, elected between 1998 and 2017. Never mind the members who served during only part of that time or the many collateral expenses that arise from buying congressional representatives and senators. Selling one’s soul is serious business, and the Devil’s prices ain’t cheap.
When you add lobbying, campaign ads, party and leadership PAC contributions, and independent campaign expenditures (whatever the heck those are!) to the contributions for individual candidates (only those currently serving as of 2017), you get a much larger number than the paltry $3.5 million claimed by the NRA. PolitiFact says the full tally for “political activities” is $203.2 million for the 1998-2017 period. So they were off by $200 million! Are we going to hold a little mathematical error against them? Geez! They’re paid to buy politicians, not do math.
Also worth noting in the PolitiFact numbers is the yuuuuge spike in spending during 2016. What was it that happened that year?
Brennan Weiss and Skye Gould report in a February 28, 2018, Business Insider article, that although the NRA is bipartisan in its contributions, it’s only barely so. Of the top 85 career recipients of NRA funds, 82 of them are Republicans (citing a database from the Center for Responsive Politics). John McCain and Richard Burr, of Arizona and North Carolina respectively, top the list for career donations, with $7,755, 701 going to McCain and $6,986,931 to Burr. Florida’s Marco Rubio–number 6 on the list–is indebted for $3,303,355. Adjusted for time of service, however, Marco Rubio, having logged only seven years so far, is just as dirty as those in the top 5. Rubio, in case anyone needs a reminder, is the sniveling coward who stood on a platform with Marjory Stoneman Douglas survivors, in the immediate aftermath of their trauma, and excused his NRA association by rationalizing “They come to me; they align themselves with my purposes”–or some such drivel.
The NRA is also noted for issuing its infamous report cards, ranking senators and representatives for their NRA-friendly stances. Here’s just a sampling. The A-list is comprised of 39 Republicans and ten Democrats; the F-list contains 35 Democrats, two Republicans, and one Independent. The B, C, and D lists are far shorter, demonstrating that the majority of law makers who have been rated fall into the extremes, with one extreme (the pro-NRA group) heavily Republican and the other (the anti-NRA group) almost exclusively Democrat. (from margieroswell.com)
The next logical question is where does the NRA get all that dirty money with which to purchase law makers’ souls? For starters, the organization currently claims more than 5 million members, each paying annual dues. The base price is $40 for one year, with incentives for longer commitments, the best value being five years for the low bargain price of just $140. Those little tidbits are straight from the NRA website, followed by these statements, in response to the question “How does the NRA use my membership dues?”:
Your support will help us defend your Second Amendment freedom whenever and wherever it comes under attack.
In addition, your membership dues will help the NRA cultivate the next generation of sportsmen and women through our youth firearms trainings…empower women with our self-defense programs…and support our police officers with our world-class law enforcement training programs.
I guess that’s pretty clear: politics first, sports and law enforcement second.
In addition to annual dues, the NRA rakes in a few more million each year from “program fees,” such as money paid to use their shooting ranges, open to both members and non-members, with slightly higher prices for non-members; admission to sporting events; and fees for education and training programs.
The organization also takes in vast revenues in contributions. According to an October 15, 2015, CNN report by Blake Ellis and Melanie Hicken,
Some political funding comes from big corporations, many within the gun industry, which donate millions to the NRA. But companies are barred from donating to the NRA’s political action committee, which the agency uses to fill campaign coffers, run ads and send out mailers for and against candidates. That’s where individual donations come in.
Private citizens, incited to paranoia by the gun lobby’s scare tactics, collectively donate millions of dollars toward keeping gun-friendly candidates in power. According to the same article,
Since 2005 [that’s a 10-year period, since the article was written in 2015], the NRA Political Victory Fund has received nearly $85 million in contributions from individual donors. After the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, donations to this political action committee surged as gun owners worried that their rights to buy and own guns were at risk.
While President Obama was calling for better regulation of gun sales in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, the gun clutchers responded by buying more guns and donating more money to the NRA.
Donations in the 2014 election cycle were up by more than 50% compared to the prior two years, and nearly doubled from a decade ago.
‘Americans look to the NRA to defend their constitutional right to self protection,’ NRA spokesperson Jennifer Baker told CNNMoney. ‘When gun control advocates ramp up their efforts to pass gun control, people voice their opposition by donating to the NRA.’
Then along came Maria Butina, and that dirty money just got a whole lot dirtier! Secret back channels; Russian billionaires; an organization long on receiving donations and short on basic decency, morality, and humanity add up to a much bigger coffer that now can afford to buy not just penny-ante MOCs but a moronic, narcissistic “president” who will allow his strings to be pulled by anyone who will feed his gargantuan ego and allow him to believe his election was legitimate.
Okay, we pretty much knew all of that, except maybe the spy/NRA connection, but that is the connection which explains why members of Congress continue to support a treasonous president, why their only response to mass murder is “thoughts and prayers,” why they are paralyzed to act against the treason and mental illness on display daily in the White House. It’s clear now that Donald Trump is not the only elected official beholden to Russia. Paralyzed MOCs are not just protecting a dysfunctional “president,” they’re protecting themselves.
Michelle Goldberg, in a July 20, 2018, opinion column for the New York Times, calls the National Rifle Association “the most important outside organization in the Republican firmament.” According to Ms. Goldberg, “Legal filings in the case [Maria Butina’s case] outline a plan to use the N.R.A. to push the Republican Party in a more pro-Russian direction.” She adds, “The young Russian woman clearly understood the political significance of the N.R.A. In one email, court papers say, she described the central ‘place and influence’ of the N.R.A. in the Republican Party.”
Goldberg quotes Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon:
I serve on both the Intelligence Committee and the Finance Committee, so I have a chance to really look at this through the periscope of both committees. And what I have wondered about for some time is this whole issue of whether the N.R.A. is getting subverted as a Russian asset.
Another dot is connected! Why were House Republicans so eager to wrap up their investigation into Russia’s election interference, declare no wrongdoing had occurred, and close their ears to any more uncomfortable information? Ms. Goldberg reports that Democrats on the committee were preparing to interview Ms. Butina and Paul Erickson, with whom she had developed an “insincere” romantic relationship. Apparently, the Repubs preferred not to know about all that back channel stuff, so they decided it was time to close up shop.
According to the Goldberg article,
McClatchy has reported that the F.B.I. is investigating whether Torshin [Aleksandr Torshin, Russian allegedly in cahoots with Butina] illegally funneled money to the N.R.A. to help Trump. Wyden [Oregon Senator] has also been trying to trace foreign money flowing into the N.R.A., but has found little cooperation from the organization, his Republican colleagues or the Treasury Department.
Funny how all those dots don’t seem nearly so random and unconnected any more! It’s all starting to make perfect sense. It’s terrifying, but it makes sense. I don’t know about you, but I’m keeping my eye on the Russian spy.