-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In writes:

On May 8, 10:34�am, Klystron wrote:

Actually, it's another reason to wish that we had a REAL advocacy
organization, like the National Rifle Association, rather than the
weak
and ineffectual ARRL, which is little better than the FCC's
compliant and obsequious lapdog.

That's an interesting comment....

How could an amateur radio advocacy organization be more effective?
Unlike the NRA, there's no radio-equivalent to the Second Amendment.

As for the ARRL being "weak and ineffectual", note the recent court
decision on FCC's actions wrt BPL. That required taking the FCC to
court, which is a pretty bold and risky move. Or note how FCC ruled
against those motorsports' use of 440 - ARRL had a big role in that.

Sure, ARRL doesn't always win, but neither does the NRA.

Most of all, I don't see the ARRL as "FCC's compliant and obsequious
lapdog". Time after time, ARRL has opposed FCC on issues affecting
amateur radio.

What would you have an advocacy group do differently, given the
limited number of US hams?

73 de Jim, N2EY

The narrative does seem to fall flat when a so-called "compliant and
obsequious lapdog" sues its master in Federal Court and scores at least
a partial win.

Furthermore, there's other significant differences between the ARRL and
the NRA that need to be considered when making suggestions about how to
increase the League's effectiveness.

For one, the NRA is a 501(c)4 organization, whereas the ARRL is
501(c)3. Both are not-for-profit and exempt from federal tax (state
laws vary). However, there are subtle, but important differences
between each one, which are detailed at:

http://nonprofitmanagement.suite101....4_organization

Some of the high points a

- 501(c)3 organizations can receive Federal grants. 501(c)4
organizations cannot.

- Donations to 501(c)3 organizations are tax-exempt. Donations to
501(c)4 organizations are not.

- 501(c)4 organizations can devote an unlimited time to lobbying, and
can participate in political campaign activity, including supporting
or opposing anyone running for public office. 501(c)3 organizations
are strictly limited in their lobbying, and cannot support or oppose
anyone running for public office.

So, to be as effective as the NRA in your mind, the ARRL would probably
have to form a 501(c)4 organization, in addition to the existing 501(c)3
organization. The NRA does actually have both, with a 501(c)3 called
the "NRA Foundation" which does charitable work consistent with the
rules for that type of organization, and can benefit from tax-exempt
donations and Federal grants, in exchange for separating off the
lobbying and campaigning activities into the 501(c)4.

The NRA has over 4 million members. Even if the League was able to
enjoy 100% membership among hams in the U.S., that would only be about
650,000. So for similar dues amounts (about $35 annual, $1,000 life),
the NRA is able to raise far more money. Do you feel that the
trade-offs in forming a 501(c)4 organization for lobbying and
campaigning would be worthwhile despite the required increases in
expenses, from loss of tax exemption and access to Federal grants, that
would have to be spread out over a much smaller membership base? Could
there even be a risk to the effectiveness of the League in the eyes of
elected officials if they did form a 501(c)4 organization, and thus
become "yet another" lobbying/campaigning group?

- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)

iD8DBQFIJGHN6Pj0az779o4RAhVcAKCDofjETp9Xu3XvshFR0A 4XMvCD3gCfb0qc
YQpERWivEHQZmgdCuQdl3Gc=
=M9sm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Paul W. Schleck " wrote:

The narrative does seem to fall flat when a so-called "compliant and
obsequious lapdog" sues its master in Federal Court and scores at least
a partial win.


That's rather naive. Think: 'good cop, bad cop.' To the general
public, filing a lawsuit is a really big deal. To a government agency,
as much government business is dictated by court decisions as by routine
administrative work. There are a number of actions that a government
agency can take to delay a court case and to run up the expenses of a
plaintiff. It would be very telling if it turned out that the FCC
attempted none of those maneuvers and allowed the case to go right to
court.


Furthermore, there's other significant differences between the ARRL and
the NRA that need to be considered when making suggestions about how to
increase the League's effectiveness.

[...] IRS minutia snipped

So, to be as effective as the NRA in your mind, the ARRL would probably
have to form a 501(c)4 organization, in addition to the existing 501(c)3
organization. The NRA does actually have both, with a 501(c)3 called
the "NRA Foundation" which does charitable work consistent with the
rules for that type of organization, and can benefit from tax-exempt
donations and Federal grants, in exchange for separating off the
lobbying and campaigning activities into the 501(c)4.


I know the 501(c)* series well, having been involved in numerous
non-profit groups and having been the treasurer of several. A non-profit
organization can easily become a "group" of non-profit organizations by
filing some forms and opening some extra checking accounts. The marginal
cost of adding another type of organization is vanishingly small. I've
been there, I've done that and it's not an issue.


The NRA has over 4 million members. Even if the League was able to
enjoy 100% membership among hams in the U.S., that would only be about
650,000. So for similar dues amounts (about $35 annual, $1,000 life),
the NRA is able to raise far more money. Do you feel that the
trade-offs in forming a 501(c)4 organization for lobbying and
campaigning would be worthwhile despite the required increases in
expenses, from loss of tax exemption and access to Federal grants, that
would have to be spread out over a much smaller membership base? Could
there even be a risk to the effectiveness of the League in the eyes of
elected officials if they did form a 501(c)4 organization, and thus
become "yet another" lobbying/campaigning group?


The NRA spends a great deal on advertising and communications. I
would expect a group of hams to be able to keep in touch for much less,
mainly via the Internet (I doubt that an expensive, glossy magazine
would be necessary and the NRA has TWO of them).
The NRA lobbies the Federal government, all fifty state governments
and any municipalities that can or might pass gun-related ordinances. A
ham radio lobby would only need to lobby the Federal government. Only
one office would be needed.
Elected officials cannot pick and choose who will lobby them. They
must deal with whatever groups we the people choose to fund and send to
Washington. "Credibility" comes from votes and money, not from sucking
up to Beltway insiders.

--
Klystron

Klystron wrote:

The NRA spends a great deal on advertising and communications. I
would expect a group of hams to be able to keep in touch for much less,
mainly via the Internet (I doubt that an expensive, glossy magazine
would be necessary and the NRA has TWO of them).
The NRA lobbies the Federal government, all fifty state governments
and any municipalities that can or might pass gun-related ordinances. A
ham radio lobby would only need to lobby the Federal government. Only
one office would be needed.
Elected officials cannot pick and choose who will lobby them. They
must deal with whatever groups we the people choose to fund and send to
Washington. "Credibility" comes from votes and money, not from sucking
up to Beltway insiders.


Then there'll be only little credibility. Even if all of the roughly
700,000 radio amateurs in the U.S. belong to such an organization, that
number--spread over our fifty states and territories--means very few
votes and very little money.

I don't see it your way. The ARRL has nowhere near 700,000 members but
it is very effective in lobbying government. It does so with few votes
and little money to spread about. It wasn't long ago that some folks
outside amateur radio wrote about wishing they were as good at lobbying
as radio amateurs.

The point to all this is that it is quite easy to sit on the sidelines
and snipe at the ARRL and to put forth unsubstantiated charges against
it from behind the cloak of anonymity. It is quite another to put
together an alternative to the ARRL. If you desire to do so, nothing is
stopping you.

Dave K8MN