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