NRA tax filing raise fresh questions about payments to powerhouse lobbyist Marion Hammer
Also that's bullshit, Marion Hammer didn't really fight the majority of what wasin SB 7026. She herself publicly supported the bumpstock ban portion.New NRA tax documents obtained by the Washington Post raise fresh questions about pay received by Marion Hammer, the architect of Florida’s “stand your ground” laws and a feared Tallahassee lobbyist,
The documents show that the NRA classified hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to its executives in 2018 as “excess benefits” which is what the Internal Revenue Service calls money that individuals take from nonprofits to enrich themselves, the Post reported.
While Hammer’s pay, which rose from $150,000 in 2017 to $220,000 in 2018 while she was on the organizations board, was not classified as “excess benefits,” it was classified as a “business transaction involving interested persons.”
The classification appears to lend credence to allegations made in an Aug. 6 lawsuit filed by the attorney general of the state of New York accuses Hammer and other high-ranking NRA executives of milking the organization for millions. The lawsuit says Hammer and four other board members cut possibly unethical compensation deals with embattled NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre.
In many instances, the deals involving Hammer were not reviewed by other leaders in the NRA, and are alleged to have been in violation of New York State law.
The Washington Post published the analysis of the NRA’s 2019 tax documents on Tuesday. In the filing, the NRA says it “became aware during 2019 of a significant diversion of its assets,” according to the Washington Post.
The tax records echo the allegations made in the Aug. 6 New York lawsuit, which alleges that this increase in pay to Hammer and others was negotiated without the consent of the NRA’s president and vice president, and was agreed to by LaPierre without being reviewed by the organizations’ financial controllers. The lawsuit says that LaPierre admitted to signing the deal with Hammer on his own.
The lawsuit also alleges that Hammer made a total of $400,000 a year while at the NRA. She made the rest of the money in grants paid out to the Unified Sportsmen of Florida, a Florida gun rights’ group that Hammer runs.
The Florida Senate closed an ethics inquiry into Hammer’s NRA payments in August 2019. The Senate instructed her to change her disclosures to reflect the payments made to her by the NRA, but the inquiry did not find that she did anything wrong.
The NRA itself is undergoing a period of upheaval. The lawsuit filed by the Attorney General of the State of New York seeks to dissolve the group, and a rift has opened between former executives, like Oliver North, who appear to be co-operating with the probe, and those still loyal to LaPierre.
“The NRA filing underscores the Association’s commitment to good governance and transparency,” said William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA, of the organizations 2018 tax returns. “It includes disclosures with respect to 2019 – all items that were addressed long before the NYAG ever filed her case. The NRA moved decisively and thoroughly in its self-evaluation, and voluntarily pursued any required actions long before it became a party to a politically-motivated lawsuit.”
Hammer was one of the leading antagonists against the package of gun reforms passed by the Florida Legislature after the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. She was also one of the leading architects of Florida’s “stand your ground” law, which allows gun owners to claim self defense when shooting someone under certain circumstances.
https://outline.com/nDb6tk
Court Declines Request in Marion Hammer Case
Hammer doesn't like negativity.... oh well. You threw negativity at me when I ran for the NRA BoD. Karma is a bitch Marion.The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a request for the full court to hear a case concerning emails sent to Florida lobbyist Marion Hammer.
Marion Hammer filed a lawsuit against California attorney and mediator Lawrence Sorensen and three other men in 2018 alleging that emails they sent to her following the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School violated Florida’s state laws concerning cyberstalking, harassment and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
As Stephen C. Phillips, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Florida, told the Florida Political Review, Hammer has been a gun rights lobbyist in Florida for decades and served as president of the National Rifle Association in the 1990s.
“Marion Hammer is one of the most powerful lobbyists in the entire country,” Phillips told the Florida Political Review. “There are many lobbyists in Tallahassee but few (if any) are as powerful or influential as Marion Hammer.”
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle dismissed Hammer’s case against Sorensen in November 2018.
Sorensen sent two emails 30 minutes apart to Hammer’s publicly listed email address available online at the Florida Association of Professional Lobbyists’ website. The emails contained images of gunshot wounds, including those sustained by President John F. Kennedy, as well as Sorensen’s name and address.
In his ruling, Hinkle argued that although Sorensen’s sending of the emails and photographs was “inappropriate, indeed disgusting,” these emails were protected under the First Amendment.
Hammer appealed the decision.
In a 51-page brief to the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court, her lawyers focused on privacy rights arguing for every citizen’s right to be “let alone.”
In August 2020, a three judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court composed of Chief Judge William Pryor and Judges Robin Rosenbaum and K. Michael Moore denied Hammer’s appeal, citing a lack of facts. The panel pointed out that to be considered cyberstalking, the emails would need to have been sent without a “legitimate purpose.” In this case, the purpose was clearly to attempt to dissuade Hammer from continuing to support assault rifles.
In order for Sorensen to have been stalking — intentionally inflicting emotional distress — his actions would have had to be “outrageous,” which the court did not find them to be. The court’s ruling was not based on the First Amendment.
In September following the ruling, Hammer requested her case be heard before the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in what is referred to as an en banc hearing.
Last month the court denied this request.
Tallahassee lawyer Thomas Findley of Baker Donelson who represented Sorensen in the case told the Florida Political Review that the case is now finished in both the trial court and the intermediate appellate court of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“Hammer has not sought certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, but I think she could try that up to the beginning of December,” said Findley. “However, I think it’s highly unlikely that they would consider the case.”
Findley said he doesn’t anticipate Sorensen facing any disciplinary action from the California Bar either, but that if he does, he will have a strong First Amendment defense.
Hammer’s legal team was contacted multiple times by Florida Political Review and did not provide any comment.