The herald article is idiotically written, mixes apples and oranges (and grapes and pineapples, etc) of the six different ways one can fund and spend on adovacy and doesn't address or count at least 90% of the money raised on this issue on the gun control side.
It is virtually ALL 501(c)3 and or tax exempt foundations to c3s. And for some time to c3s that are twinned/in-house
to c4s.
If you spend $20 million showing pictures of parkland kids, spiffing celebrities to denounce "gun culture", organize a huge march, including doing all the infrastructure, pay for buses, have $200k/year flacks write the messaging, organize people locally, coach people on talking points to use with their members of congress do you know how much of that is considered by the FEC and the IRS as "lobbying"? If you know what you are doing: $0.
Paid personnel supporting or opposing specific legislation to the legislator or the staff is lobbying. Volunteers is not. Profession paid staff on media is not.
All of that can be done by c4 not for profits and not count as lobbying (in addition actual certain amount of IRS defined lobbying they can do) and most of it can be done by c3 charities, and foundations who found the c3 charities, with no affect on a foundation's status.
My local PBS station just took $5 million from a foundation that works with the gun control lobby, to create a "grant" program for "mid career (working) journalists to train them on "gun violence and gun control issues. not scholarships for undergrad or grad student journalists -- but cash to working journalists from a major gun control supporting foundation.
kendeda isn't even in the top ten of gun control lobby/adovacy funding and it was about $40 million last year and likely on track to be as much or more this year.
They also funded multi million dollar campaign kicked off in November 2017 whose sole mission and activity is to organize boycotts/social media complaints against companies that affiliate with the NRA. That can be done as "charity" and none of it counts as lobbying.
I worked in DC for quite some time for a 501c4 that had a 501c3 arm that was pure issue adovacy and "education." I consult for quite a few now. There are firms and personnel in DC whose sole expertise is in moving as much spending right up to the line as c3, pushing what c4s can do, making sure lawmakers know that campaign donations or 527 work and legislative interests are associated with the c4/c3s even though the c3s personnel don't say it in a open secret system.
Let's take a look at statements in the Herald piece:
The NRA spent $31 million to attack Hillary Clinton or support Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign,
Not mentioned? This is less than the gun control advocates.
and the NRA's lobbying arm also spends millions on federal elections, but it does not have to report information on its donors or finances to the FEC.
Idiotic red herring. Lobbying is advocating legislation. NO ONE, the the NRA, not the gun control groups, not Greenpeace, not Human Rights Campaign, NAACP, ACLU, Exxon, GM, GE repots that to the FEC -- but all do the IRS.
Gun control groups haven't been able to match the NRA's fundraising.
An absurd inversion. Yeah sure, if you only count 1% of the funding mechanisms in 1% of the funding vehicles. if you skip the major foundations giving over $170 million per year to gun control groups, and fell of a turnip truck and think that Michael Bloomberg funding of pollical campaigns is unrelated to gun control or the $80 million out of 300 million to Johns Hopkins that went to the gun violence research center there is unrelated to gun control issue.
