My #hottake on the NRA lawsuit: It’s Not What You Think
Despite breathless coverage from .@RollingStone, .@nypost and others, the NRA isn’t going bankrupt, although I’m sure it appreciates .@thegoodgodabove's and everyone’s #thoughtsandprayers.
Neither are #NRA's expressed economic concerns related to the recent criminal indictment of #MariaBukhina for illegal flows of #Russian money to the #GOP via the #NRA.
Instead #NRA alleges that #NYS governor and chief banking and insurance regulator are improperly pressuring #banks and #insurers not to do business with the #NRA, in order to carry out a political, anti-#gun rights agenda. But are they?
#NRA's lawsuit, pending since May, asks: is it proper for a #Governor to “direct” the Financial Services Superintendent to “urge” companies it regulates to “review” relationships with #NRA, and for Superintendent to comply, in pursuit of a political agenda?
Moreover, is the #NYS Department of Financial Services selectively prosecuting #NRA-affiliated insurers, while leaving similar conduct by others untouched? Doesn't this violate NRA's #constitutional rights (#freespeech, #dueprocess, #equalprotection)?
OTOH, months before the officials' statements, two insurers were already under investigation for violating #NYS law with their #NRA-affiliated insurance policies. These policies were lucrative for both the insurers and the NRA - millions of dollars of New Yorkers’ money 2000-18.
Ultimately both insurers signed consent decrees admitting wrongdoing and agreeing to pay millions in civil penalties. These were not mere technicalities but substantive violations...
...(1) New York law prohibits insurance coverage for defense costs arising out of a crime, such as #DWI or #rape; and (2) Paying royalties for based on a percentage of premiums collected to an entity that is not a licensed insurance broker, like #NRA, violates the law.
As part of the settlement, both insurers agreed not to underwrite any affinity-type insurance program with the #NRA in #NYS. But both can continue to write corporate insurance for the NRA itself.
This matters because the crux of NRA’s complaint is that they can’t buy insurance because they’ve been blackballed by #NYS, and that will preclude them from carrying out their expressive activities such as holding conventions and broadcasting NRA-TV.
In the end, the harm the NRA alleges seems speculative at best: NRA is having or may in the future have difficulty obtaining insurance and banking services in NY.
Even if #NRA ends up being right (or partially right) that that difficulty stems back to politically motivated DFS enforcement action, that allegation bumps up against extant NYS law and the insurers’ own admissions that they violated it.
Was the settlement coerced? Given the blue-chip counsel representing the insurers in the consent decree, it would be hard to argue these settlements were coerced. #NRA is the only one arguing coercion.
I don't foresee a judge granting an injunction for irreparable harm, let alone awarding damages, on the facts alleged. The Complaint is more the stuff of a press release, op-ed or talking points memo than a lawsuit.
Had they left it as a matter of public opinion, they could have better managed the timing vis-a-vis the #Bukhina #Russia #MoneyLaundering allegations. Now they're stuck with a briefing schedule in the middle of that mess. Discovery, too, if they defeat the motion to dismiss.
Parting thought: apart from #clickbait value (Mrs. Lincoln) I can’t fathom the poor reporting on this story that clearly didn’t even read the underlying court documents. Where are the qualified #legal #journalists?
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.