Sure, Don, but there’s a price
Oy.
Trump is begging the NRA to help him not be impeached, and the NRA is demanding more fanatical support for More and More Guns as the price. It’s hard to know which half of that sentence is the most disgusting.
The President of the United States trading legislation the American public is demanding to stop the weekly slaughter of gun violence in exchange for money for his personal legal defense.
The squeeze is on.
With President Donald Trump facing impeachment, the NRA is reportedly looking to leverage the political moment to lock in his opposition to new gun control measures.
Trump and NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre met Friday to discuss the the NRA providing financial support for Trump’s impeachment defense, the New York Times reported Friday.
The support comes at a price.
“Mr. LaPierre asked that the White House ‘stop the games’ over gun control legislation, people familiar with the meeting said,” the Times said.
This elevator goes only down. Down, down, down.
Why isn’t that out-and-out bribery?
Because, technically, it’s extortion.
Democracy through the barrel of a gun.
It’s a tricky area.
Taking the specific players out of it, is it really unreasonable for a president and a lobbying group to have the following conversation:
Prez: “My enemies are trying to impeach me. Will you help me with my defense?”
Interest Group: “Why should we?”
Prez: “Because I’m a good president who’s done a lot to fight for your priorities.”
IG: “Eh, your record is pretty mixed lately. You’ve been playing footsie with our opponents and suggesting you’re willing to pass new legislation which we vehemently oppose. Why should we go to bat for you when you’re working against us?”
P: “I was on your side all along, those discussions were just for appearances’ sake. I’ll stop them now.”
IG: “Ok, if you do, then you’ll be back in our good graces and we’ll help defend you.”
Suppose that conversation is not between Trump and the NRA about gun legislation, but (say) a Democratic president and the AARP regarding Social Security cuts.
People — individually or as part of an organization — have the right to support the politicians who they think are good for their cause, and not the ones who don’t. They have the right to communicate their frustration or disappointment with an erstwhile ally who’s gone wobbly. They have the right to spend money to run ads supporting or denouncing a politician or a particular policy (including an impeachment effort).
I’m a little uncomfortable with the way that current law seems to allow anything short of an explicit quid pro quo that puts money directly in a public official’s personal pocket. But I’m not sure how much we can move the line without sweeping in a lot of behavior that should be protected.
@Screechy Monkey #4.
Yes I think that is unreasonable, whatever the specifics.
If the NRA thinks the president is innocent and so wants to help a man with his legal council, that is one thing.
If the NRA wants to campaign for Trump because it thinks they share the same priorities, that is also not a problem.
But to support him in his legal council in exchange for executive favors, that crosses the line for me.
Legislation, and “help me with my impeachment” are not to be mixed. No one has any business asking interest groups to “help me with my impeachment defense.”