In a shocking move, Wayne LaPierre announced his resignation as National Rifle Association executive vice president on Friday.
His resignation doesn’t go into effect until the end of the month, by which time the New York corruption case against him and the NRA will be nearly over. And when he does step down, his closest allies will remain in control of the gun-rights group anyway. But the end of LaPierre’s decades-long tenure at the top of the NRA will inevitably transform what the group is and how it works, at least eventually.
So, LaPierre’s resignation probably won’t change much in the near term. But it’s likely to invite a seachange in the long term.
When LaPierre steps aside, Andrew Arulanandam will take over. Arulanandam has been a close LaPierre confidant for a very long time. He was one of the few people besides LaPierre and outside lawyer Bill Brewer to know about the failed bankruptcy filing before it was publicly announced. Most of the NRA’s Board of Directors didn’t even know about the filing before Arulanandam.
He was also the group’s long-serving spokesperson until just last month. In what appears to have been a move to set Arulanandam up to succeed LaPierre, the former head of NRA General Operations (GO) was removed and replaced by Arulanandam. Perhaps not coincidentally, the head of GO is the one who succeeds the executive vice president when they step down.
Additionally, the other person quoted in LaPierre’s resignation notice was long-time ally and NRA president Charles Cotton. His position in that role was also the result of recent internal maneuvering. Cotton’s term as president was set to expire last year, with First Vice President Willis Lee in line to replace him.
Instead, the NRA changed its rules to oust Lee and extend Cotton.
The result of all this is, unless the NRA Board takes emergency action, there probably won’t be many changes to how the group runs until at least the Annual Meeting in May. It will likely pursue the same financial strategy that has prioritized sending a huge percentage of the group’s shrinking budget to Brewer to follow the same legal strategy that’s got them to this point.
LaPierre’s resignation could boost the defense Brewer has formulated. The NRA’s legal strategy has been to admit to a fraction of the wrongdoing it and its leaders have been accused of but counter that reforms have been implemented and the worst offenders have been let go. LaPierre, who is at the center of the corruption allegations, remaining in charge was a major problem with that argument, and his retirement could help.
But the NRA still faces an uphill battle on that front. LaPierre’s resignation wasn’t accompanied by a settlement announcement from New York Attorney General Letitia James (D.). And she’s arguing the move actually bolsters her arguments.
“LaPierre’s resignation validates our claims against him, but it will not insulate him or the NRA from accountability,” she said in a statement. “All charities in New York state must adhere to the rule of law, and my office will not tolerate gross mismanagement or top executives funneling millions into their own pockets. Our case will move ahead, and we look forward to proving the facts in court.”
The trial itself might render LaPierre’s resignation moot. If the NRA loses, he’ll be barred from working at the group or any other that operates in New York. And many of the leaders who approved of his conduct could be gone, too.
But LaPierre’s resignation ensures that the NRA will need a new leader regardless of the outcome of the trial. Even if the NRA prevails in the New York corruption case, the Board will have to decide on a new executive vice president. Without LaPierre as an option, it’s unclear where they will go.
It’s more likely than ever before that LaPierre’s staunchest allies will lose control of the organization. The last five years have been a disaster for the organization. It has lost over a million members, revenue has fallen by more than half, and spending on political efforts as well as member services has been hollowed out.
Several NRA Board Members have been pushed out of the group over the same time period for objecting to going down this path. Those who’ve remained have been willing to do so primarily because of their loyalty to LaPierre, often citing his successful track record as evidence the group is traveling down a road that will eventually lead to something positive.
With LaPierre gone, NRA Board Members may be willing to shake things up. That’s especially true if the next six weeks in court don’t go well. More reform-minded leadership could ultimately emerge from that dynamic.
Refreshing the organization’s leadership, internal controls, and public face could go a long way to reverse its current downward spiral.
The NRA remains a strong brand. No other group in the gun space is as well-known or as influential, even today. The corruption suit has dogged its image and finances. But rebound remains a realistic possibility in the long term.
Those million members who dropped off could be easiest to convince to return. But there are tens, perhaps, hundreds of millions of gun owners beyond that the group could reach too. The truth is the NRA wasn’t keeping up with population growth in the years before the scandal broke, and it hasn’t capitalized on the recent jump in gun ownership.
52% of American voters report having a gun in the home, according to a recent NBC poll. Over 250 million Americans are adults, according to the Census Bureau. But internal documents show the NRA has never had even 5.5 million members.
That’s a huge number that puts the NRA in a league of its own and underlines its influence. But it also reveals a serious problem with the NRA’s outreach operation that stretches back even before its recent struggles. A reformed and refreshed organization has an opportunity to be bigger and more powerful than ever before.
But whether it capitalizes on that change will likely rely on more than just cleaning up its operations. Given how long LaPierre was the head of the group, it’s hard to know how somebody else might manage in his role.
New leadership would bring all kinds of questions about where the NRA goes in the long term. What approach will it take to attract new members? How will it prioritize resources? Will it focus more on services like training or competition shooting? More on lobbying or political ads?
And what will its politics look like? The NRA has long been hit from either end of the spectrum. Those on the left have long accused it of being extreme on gun policy and refusing to make “common sense” compromises. On the right, the most common recruiting method of other gun-rights groups is to claim the NRA compromises too much.
When you’re as big as the NRA, that sort of dynamic may be an inevitability. But the way new leadership at the group comes down on that argument will impact where it goes on political strategy. The outcome of that is unknowable as of now.
What we do know is Wayne LaPierre will no longer be the one with his finger on the trigger, and that’s bound to change the NRA’s aim in some ways. Just not right away.
5 Responses
I wonder if his post-employment compensation deal(s) will survive the court case, or if that’s a question that’s already been addressed in his resignation speeches/letters/rumors. Seems that cash is in short supply at the NRA these days. His repayments of misused funds – flying his wife’s hairdresser around, ffs – may just be an insignificant deduction from his resignation check.
I’ve long said the NRA is worth saving as an institution – it’s worth more than Wayne, not just as a brand, but as our oldest civil rights organization, which many families have been members of for more than a generation. I’m happy to see Wayne go, but damn, it’s a been destructive process. You can’t review that list of names and associated charities that James released and not just regard all non-profits as corrupt money-go-rounds until proven otherwise. The first job of any non-profit is to keep the thieves out, which are attracted to them like flies, and the NRA has been falling down on that for decades. Hard to recover once they rule the roost.
The NRA has had such a hard time rallying the membership to its side during this fight (I think) because we’ve watched the shenanigans for years with absolute seething frustration. Its why I don’t regard Ms. James efforts with complete hostility – yes, she’s gunning for their absolute destruction, but I’m hopeful the judge will see that disenfranchising the millions of members is not the answer. Implementing some forced reform that addresses the concerns shared by Ms. James and the members is the wise balance.
The first sign of change that I’ll regard as a positive indicator is shrinking the board down to less than 15 people. A board with scores of members cannot reach consensus and cannot be an effective oversight body. I’ve no doubt that this was intentional at the NRA. The board seats were handed out as favors all while eliminating its value. It also annihilated the influence of the membership vote. What would the NRA board look like with 15 members who got there from substantial membership influence?
Well, here’s hoping that the court case leaves the NRA intact but spurs substantial reform. What that looks like, I don’t know.
Definitely some interesting ideas in there that probably would help the NRA. One thing to note about the New York case is that the judge has already ruled out dissolution as a punishment. So, the most the court can do is remove leadership and appoint an overseer.
Yes, but do we know how “binding” that decision was?
I mean, I think I remember being relieved when that happened but it also seemed to me no guarantee that he or further procedural developments couldn’t reconsider.
If the case is resolved in such a way that the claims against the defendants are established, are there subsequent filings waiting in the wings where the remedy of dissolution is proposed anew – something like, because guilt has been established in these contexts, it follows that further responsibility for the negligence/breach/fraud/etc exists in these broader domains. I know this is all hypothetical and you may say mere hand-wringing, but it’s not a concern pulled from thin air.
Of particular note, we have not seen the organization take the vocal stand that if fraud happened by these actors (Wayne, et al), the organization itself was a victim. From my own exposure to federal corporate law, I’ve seen this work as an effective defense *of the organization* in the face of targeted executives. The logic being, if we were a victim, we can not also be guilty. But the NRA doesn’t seem to make this claim. Instead they seem to have their leg tied to Wayne’s, and.. we’ll just have to wait and see, but I wouldn’t be too surprised if there’s a round two if round one is even halfway successful.
Additionally, pure dissolution is not the only way to hollow out the NRA. There are good and bad outcomes of an appointed overseer. I think we’d all agree that best possible outcome would be one that focuses on practical improvements to corporate governance without a whiff of politics. We’ll probably get something shy of that.
On the other end of the spectrum, we can envisage one who, as an agent pursuing the policies of the SDNY by other means – either an individual or an appointed review board – lives like a parasite on the coffers with a negative influence on goal-setting, corporate data protection, and operational decision-making. We go from Brewer and the legal team to a the equivalent of an unscrupulous court-appointed probate lawyer or probation officer. “Nice non-profit ya got there, shame if I had to report back that y’all are being uncooperative.”
It’s not hard to imagine worst case scenarios, and they’re only that. And yeah, the NRA has only themselves to blame for even being in this awful position. But the scorpion is still a scorpion. James didn’t ride into office promising to take out Wayne, but the NRA. My own desire is to see Wayne and his cronies gone, but I don’t think James’ project scope is that narrow. We’ll see, right?
Well, just read your latest article wherein Brewer is quoted as saying, “The suggested contents would confirm what the NRA has said all along: there were certain ‘insiders’ and vendors who took advantage of the Association. If true, it is an example of a shadowy business arrangement — one that was not brought to the attention of the NRA board.”
Maybe I’m wrong but that distancing sure seems like a shift in public messaging to me, if in fact the message is meant to distance between the board and Wayne. Am I reading too much into that?
You’re absolutely right that there are significant risks for the NRA in a court-appointed overseer. I think you laid them out well.
Also, Brewer has been mildly distancing the NRA from Wayne in court since the bankruptcy. His firm’s defense of the NRA is that there were issues and the organization was taken advantage of by insiders and vendors, including LaPierre to a certain degree, but they’ve self-corrected. That’s why LaPierre has paid the NRA nearly a million dollars already.
But the core of this argument is that they’re only admitting to a small amount of the alleged malfeasance. And they’re arguing it’s already been corrected. So, they haven’t seemed as willing to completely throw LaPierre under the bus at this point. I doubt they will in this case, but you never know.