Racine A G D C
SEE CLIMATE LAWSUITS
---
GUK 1 26?
Big oil ramped up its efforts to evade accountability for its past actions this year, said Wiles. They were aided by allies like Trump, who in April signed an executive order instructing the Justice Department to halt climate accountability litigation and similar policies.
In July, members of Congress also tried to cut off Washington DC’s access to funding to enforce its consumer protection laws “against oil and gas companies for environmental claims” by inserting language into a proposed House appropriations bill. A committee passed that version of the text, but the full House never voted on it. 200 PP BILL NO #? BBB?
---
7 25 GMAIL
Read our_full blog post_on our website.
An attempt to defund the District of Columbia’s consumer protection lawsuit against Big Oil is part of a wider attack on climate accountability lawsuits
As Big Oil and its allies lobby to shield the fossil fuel industry from a growing number of climate deception lawsuits, Congress is now taking aim at a case filed by the nation’s capital.
Recently proposed legislation would prohibit the District of Columbia from using any funds to enforce its consumer protection laws “against oil and gas companies for environmental claims” — a clear attack on D.C.’s ongoing lawsuit against ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell.
“The fossil fuel industry and its allies are trying to kill any and all lawsuits that would hold Big Oil companies accountable for their climate lies and the damage they’ve caused — and this assault on D.C.’s ability to enforce its own consumer protection laws is part of their playbook,” said CCI President Richard Wiles.
Read our full blog post on our website:
July 24, 2025
As Big Oil and its allies lobby to shield the fossil fuel industry from a growing number of climate deception lawsuits, Congress is now taking aim at a case filed by the nation’s capital.
Under a newly released appropriations bill, Congress would prohibit the District of Columbia from using any funds to enforce its consumer protection laws “against oil and gas companies for environmental claims.” The legislation clearly targets D.C.’s ongoing lawsuit against ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell, which argues the companies violated D.C.’s consumer protection law by engaging in misleading acts and practices around the marketing, promotion, and sale of fossil fuel products. In April, a D.C. court rejected the Big Oil companies’ motions to dismiss the case, bringing it one step closer to trial.
“The fossil fuel industry and its allies are trying to kill any and all lawsuits that would hold Big Oil companies accountable for their climate lies and the damage they’ve caused — and this assault on D.C.’s ability to enforce its own consumer protection laws is part of their playbook,” said CCI President Richard Wiles.
The attack on D.C.’s case comes after 16 Republican attorneys general asked U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to help erect a “liability shield” for fossil fuel companies against climate lawsuits. Among its tactics, the attorneys general recommended that the federal government restrict funding for state and local governments that seek to make fossil fuel companies pay for climate damages.
:{:{CCI and nearly 200 other groups have urged Congress to support climate accountability and oppose immunity for Big Oil. Now a growing number of public officials are joining those calls. U.S. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents D.C. in Congress, vowed to fight the attack on D.C.’s lawsuit. The National Association of Counties, representing thousands of county officials across the U.S., is urgingCongress to reject any legislation that “would limit or preempt counties’ access to courts or give companies immunity from lawsuits over damages and costs.” }:
And Oregon’s congressional representatives called for President Trump to rescind an order that targeted state climate actions. “Governments, residents, businesses, and others must have access to legal and legislative remedies in order to hold fossil fuel companies accountable, seek justice, and make polluters pay for the damage they have caused,” they wrote.}:
“No industry should be above the law, especially one as powerful and harmful as Big Oil,” said CCI’s Wiles. “Members of Congress must reject this underhanded attempt to help Big Oil escape accountability and protect access to the courts for every community.”
---
desmog API
June 24–25, 2020
API was highlighted in a lawsuit from the Minnesota Attorney General’s office that also called out Exxon Mobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Koch Industries, Inc., and the Koch-owned Flint Hills Resources LP and Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend for allegedly misleading consumers about climate change. [87]
“When corporations and trade associations break the law and hurt Minnesotans, it’s my job and my duty to hold them accountable. The fraud, deceptive advertising, and other violations of Minnesota state law and common law that the lawsuit shows they perpetrated have harmed Minnesotans’ health and our state’s environment, infrastructure, and economy,” said Attorney General Keith Ellison, as reported in the AG office press release. [88]
“Previously unknown internal documents were recently discovered that confirm that Defendants well understood the devastating effects that their products would cause to the climate, including Minnesota, dating back to the 1970s and 1980s. But Defendants did not ever disclose to the public—or to Minnesotans—their actual knowledge that would confirm the very science they sought to undermine. Instead, Defendants, both directly and through proxies, engaged in a public-relations campaign that was not only false, but also highly effective. This campaign was intended to, and did, target and influence the public, and consumers, including in Minnesota,” the lawsuit reads. [89]
Discussing API‘s role:
“API has been a member of at least five organizations that have promoted disinformation about fossil-fuel products to consumers, including the Global Climate Coalition, Partnership for a Better Energy Future, Coalition for American Jobs, Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, and Alliance for Climate Strategies. These front groups were formed to provide climate disinformation and advocacy from a seemingly objective source, when, in fact, they were financed and controlled by ExxonMobil and other sellers of fossil-fuel products. Defendants benefited from the spread of this disinformation.”
On Koch, the lawsuit suggests that the company is liable for the various actions of its numerous subsidiaries involved in the manufacturing, refining, and distribution of petroleum products. It also notes:
“Koch also supports numerous foundations including the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Koch Institute, and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation. Koch expects the foundations that it supports to fund groups that further its financial interests. Koch constructively controls how the foundations that it supports direct their philanthropic activities.”
It also notes that, like numerous other oil companies, “Koch also understood climate-change science, the connection to sales of its fossil fuel products, and the potential for catastrophic consequences before the science was widely understood by the general public.”
It highlights what appeared to be a coordinated effort by companies including Koch to “combat climate change ‘alarmists’ through a campaign focused on science, information dissemination, and politics.” It highlights a 2006 memo from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association that outlined how Koch Industries was working with other large corporations including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Southern Company, American Electric Power (AEP), and National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).
Shortly after, the D.C. Attorney General’s Office joined in a similar lawsuit against BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell. The lawsuit alleges the four largest investor-owned oil and gas companies violated the District’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act by promoting and selling fossil fuel products contributing to global warming, while knowing about the harmful consequences since at least the 1950s. [90]
The lawsuit highlights the industry’s use of fake grassroots groups, such as the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, which started out as a front group for tobacco giant Philip Morris in 1993. This group had transitioned to become the Advancement of Sound Science Center in 1997 and was run out of the home of climate science denier Steve Milloy, who most recently worked in public relations for coal company Murray Energy, before being disbanded. [90]
According to a press release from the D.C. Attorney General’s Office, “The [oil] companies not only employed the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition — a fake grassroots citizen group created by Big Tobacco as part of the industry’s misinformation campaign — they also funded and promoted some of the same scientists hired by tobacco companies. These scientists disputed the conclusions of climate researchers, despite not having any training in climate science themselves.” [91]
“For decades, these oil and gas companies spent millions to mislead consumers and discredit climate science in pursuit of profits,” said AG Racine. “The defendants violated the District’s consumer protection law by concealing the fact that using fossil fuels threatens the health of District residents and the environment. OAG filed this suit to end these disinformation campaigns and to hold these companies accountable for their deceptive practices.
---
---
---
GGL 10 23
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Attorney General Karl A. Racine today sued Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell for systematically and intentionally misleading District consumers about the role their products play in causing climate change.Jun 25, 2020
[### AG Racine Sues Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell for ...
DC.gov
https://oag.dc.gov › release › ag-racine-sues-exxon-mo...](https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-racine-sues-exxon-mobil-bp-chevron-and-shell#::text=WASHINGTON%2C%20D.C.%20%E2%80%94%20Attorney%20General%20Karl,play%20in%20causing%20climate%20change.)
Feedback
[### AG Racine Announces New Lawsuit Against Major Chemical ...
DC OAG (.gov)
https://oag.dc.gov › release › ag-racine-announces-n...](https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-racine-announces-new-lawsuit-against-major)
Oct 13, 2022 — WASHINGTON, D.C – Attorney General Karl A. Racine today announced a new lawsuit against Velsicol, a major chemical manufacturer, for violating ...
[### D.C. attorney general sues oil and gas companies, alleging ...
Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com › local › 2020/06/25](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/dc-attorney-general-sues-oil-and-gas-companies-alleging-industry-misled-public-about-climate-change/2020/06/25/7b633584-b705-11ea-a8da-693df3d7674a_story.html)
Jun 25, 2020 — Attorney General Karl A. Racine said in a news conference Thursday that ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron have violated the ...
Karl Racine restarts 'Exxon knew' climate-fraud probe}:
Washington Times
https://www.washingtontimes.com › news › mar › ka...](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/28/karl-racine-restarts-exxon-knew-climate-fraud-prob/)
Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Thursday, March 28, 2019
For three years, former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s dream of nailing ExxonMobil for “climate fraud” has been stuck in neutral, but now the District is preparing to step on the gas.
D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine has solicited private legal counsel to work on an investigation — and potential litigation — against the world’s largest oil company on a contingency-fee basis. The request for bids ends Friday.
Despite its research, “Exxon has failed to inform consumers about the effects of its fossil fuel products on climate change,” said the solicitation. “Exxon has also engaged or funded efforts to mislead DC consumers and others about the potential impacts of climate change.”
Mr. Racine’s decision to pursue the climate-fraud strategy caught industry onlookers by surprise, given the decline of the coalition of 17 liberal attorneys general known as AGs United for Clean Power, unveiled amid much fanfare at a March 2016 event with former Vice President Al Gore.
So far only one state — New York — has filed a lawsuit. Massachusetts has been mired for years in a legal fight with Exxon over documents. The Virgin Islands attorney general retreated early on from his attempt to subpoena documents from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Mr. Schneiderman himself no longer leads the coalition after resigning his office abruptly last year over allegations of physically abusing four women. If other states investigated Exxon behind the scenes, they have yet to result in legal action.
“The timing is bizarre,” said Spencer Walrath, research director of Energy in Depth, a project of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
Why now? So far Mr. Racine has offered no public insight into his decision-making, but as one of the AGs United for Clean Power — made up of 16 Democrats and one independent — he has supported the Massachusetts and New York investigations.
In 2016, he joined an amicus brief in support of Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s investigation. He also signed a 2017 letter objecting to congressional subpoenas against the New York and Massachusetts prosecutors.
“Passionate about protecting our environment? Join our team!” Mr. Racine wrote in a March 15 tweet. “Our office is seeking outside legal counsel to support OAG’s climate change work.”
Passionate about protecting our environment? Join our team!
Our office is seeking outside legal counsel to support OAG’s climate change work: https://t.co/ZMZpEdcEuk
— AG Karl A. Racine (@AGKarlRacine) March 15, 2019
Chris Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, pointed out that the District’s Attorney General’s Office hired Sarah Kogel-Smucker last year as a “special assistant attorney general” paid for by the Bloomberg-funded State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at New York University, which places lawyers with state prosecutors to assist in “promoting clean energy.”
“A year later, one of the big reasons for bringing her on bears fruit: [the] DC OAG decides to hire an outside, plaintiffs’ firm to escalate the shakedown,” said Mr. Horner in an email.
A spokesman for the District’s Attorney General’s Office had no comment about a timetable. Under the solicitation, two lawyers and one paralegal would be contracted on a contingency basis, meaning they would be paid only if their work resulted in a monetary award, which Mr. Horner described as “unusual.”
Also drawing attention is a clause in the solicitation that says the contractor “may assign to a bank, trust company, or other financing institution funds due or to become due as a result of the performance of this contract.”
“In other words, a third party — like a hedge fund — can finance the contractor’s work in this investigation, allowing that entity rights to any winnings from the case,” said Mr. Walrath in a March 20 post. “The arrangement raises the possibility that wealthy entities or individuals supportive of the investigations against ExxonMobil, including the Rockefeller family, could directly fund and even profit from any eventual litigation.”
He cited comments by the Cato Institute’s Andrew Grossman in the Daily Caller, who said the arrangement “gives a whole new meaning to ‘policing for profit.’”
As climate litigation goes, the focus has shifted in the last year to lawsuits filed by municipalities and one state — Rhode Island — against major oil-and-gas companies seeking billions for climate-related mitigation efforts to infrastructure.
“Those costs involve building sea walls, implementing public-health programs, and taking other resiliency measures to protect the public and municipal property from rising sea levels, increased heat and precipitation, more frequent extreme weather, and other threats,” said the New York City appeal.
That legal avenue has its own potholes. Last year, federal judges threw out the public-nuisance lawsuits filed by New York City, San Francisco and Oakland, ruling that the climate-change debate should be resolved by the legislative and not judicial branch.
Both Oakland and San Francisco filed an appeal earlier this month with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, while New York City has filed an appeal in the 2nd Circuit.
Also gaining support from activists is litigation filed by children against federal and state governments demanding action on climate change. So far nine children’s lawsuits have been filed, and three of the state-level cases have been dismissed, according to InsideClimate News.
Valerie Richardson can be reached at vrichardson@washingtontimes.com.*}:
---
Mar 28, 2019 — For three years, former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's dream of holding ExxonMobil accountable for "climate fraud" has been ...
[### D.C. girds for Exxon climate battle - E&E News by POLITICO
eenews.net
https://www.eenews.net › Articles](https://www.eenews.net/articles/d-c-girds-for-exxon-climate-battle/)
Mar 18, 2019 — Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racine (D) last week revealed plans to hire climate lawyers to focus on an investigation and potential ...
[### D.C. AG Suing Chemical Company Over Cancer-Causing ...
Washington Informer
https://www.washingtoninformer.com › d-c-ag-suing...](https://www.washingtoninformer.com/d-c-ag-suing-chemical-company-over-cancer-causing-pollution/)
Oct 13, 2022 — Attorney General Karl Racine is suing chemical manufacturer Velsicol Chemical, LLC over pollution in the District's waterways that primarily ...
---
[### Judge Deals Latest Blow to Big Oil in DC Climate Fraud Case
DeSmog
https://www.desmog.com › 2022/11/21 › judge-blow-...](https://www.desmog.com/2022/11/21/judge-blow-big-oil-dc-climate-fraud-case/)
Nov 21, 2022 — We filed our lawsuit to expose these big oil companies' rampant deception and stop it. Today our case takes an important step forward.
In recent years, communities across the United States increasingly have turned to the courts to hold oil and gas companies accountable for alleged fraud — which has worsened the climate crisis — and now those lawsuits are inching towards trial. Despite dogged attempts from industry lawyers to force the litigation into federal courts, where they see an easier path to dismissal, they continue to strike out as judges from California to Connecticut rule that state courts are the appropriate venues for these climate accountability lawsuits.
The latest addition to the fossil fuel industry’s long procedural losing streak came on November 12 when a federal district judge decided that the District of Columbia’s climate liability lawsuit belongs in the local court, where it was originally filed in June 2020. As with other climate liability lawsuits, lawyers for the oil and gas companies in the District of Columbia case devised a multitude of arguments claiming that only federal courts have the jurisdiction or authority to handle such lawsuits. But federal courts have not been buying these legal theories.
“Defendants raise seven theories for the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Each, they say, is an independent ground for removal. None is,” Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in his recent opinion. He joins twelve other federal district judges and five appeals courts in dismissing all of the fossil fuel companies’ arguments for federal jurisdiction. Several of the appeals courts have even ruled twice to affirm that state courts are the right venue for these cases.
Statement from District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine on the recent federal ruling on his case.
The District of Columbia’s case is among two dozen lawsuits filed by cities, counties, and states against the fossil fuel industry over its role in attacking climate science and spreading disinformation in order to stave off climate action and protect profits. A handful of coastal California communities brought the first of these cases in 2017. Since then, the lawsuits have been bogged down in procedural wrangling.
Local and state governments are making claims under local and state laws, invoking issues such as product liability – used to hold manufacturers responsible for selling a defective or harmful product- and consumer protection – designed to protect against misleading marketing and fraud — and have filed their complaints in state courts. Fossil fuel companies are pushing the cases to federal courts, fighting tooth and nail to avoid litigating in state courts, where they could face discovery and trial.
“Chevron respectfully disagrees with the district court’s decision remanding this climate change action to the District of Columbia municipal court. This case belongs in federal court because climate change is a global phenomenon that requires a coordinated federal policy response, not a patchwork of lawsuits brought in municipal and state courts,” Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, and counsel for Chevron Corporation, said in an emailed statement.
“The industry’s efforts to keep the cases from proceeding in state court for almost six years now indicates that, contrary to its public messaging otherwise, it thinks there’s a reason to be worried,” Karen Sokol, a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, told DeSmog via email.
One advocate for polluter accountability suggested that these procedural maneuvers represent the fossil fuel industry’s strategic bid for swift dismissal of the cases through federal courts.
“Once again, the courts have seen through Big Oil’s attempts to mischaracterize these cases, and now the people of D.C. are one step closer to having their day in court,” Alyssa Johl, vice president of legal at the Center for Climate Integrity – which campaigns for holding climate polluters accountable — said in an emailed statement.
The District of Columbia case, brought by Attorney General Karl Racine two years ago, names oil majors BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell as defendants. It alleges they misled District consumers around the climate consequences of their products and continue to mislead through deceptive advertising and greenwashing. The lawsuit contends that this behavior violates the District’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act.
“Independently and through coordinated campaigns and industry front groups, Defendants have deceived D.C. consumers about how Defendants’ fossil fuel products warm the planet and disrupt the climate in a quest to drive profits through increased sales of gas and other fossil fuel products. Defendants continue to mislead D.C. consumers to this day,” the complaint states.
The District of Columbia and others bringing these climate liability lawsuits say their claims are based on the deceptive conduct of the fossil fuel companies, not on the emissions or production of fossil fuels. The companies, however, have tried to paint the cases as attacking production.
“We do not believe the courtroom is the right venue to address climate change, but that smart policy from government, supported by action from all business sectors, including ours, and from civil society, is the appropriate way to reach solutions and drive progress,” said Natalie Gunnell, spokesperson for the Shell Group, which is named in the District of Columbia suit and several similar cases.
However, Judge Kelly and other judges have pushed back against this framing that centers the cases in this way.
“The ‘charged conduct’ here is Defendants’ false advertising – not fossil fuel production en masse,” Judge Kelly noted in his opinion.
Similarly, in a ruling issued this April, an appellate court recognized that Baltimore was suing oil and gas companies not over the production and sale of fossil fuel products, but for mispresenting the climate harms of these products. As the court wrote, “it is the concealment and misrepresentation of the products’ known dangers – and the simultaneous promotion of their unrestrained use – that allegedly drove consumption, and thus greenhouse gas pollution, and thus climate change.”
That Baltimore ruling followed a directive from the U.S. Supreme Court that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and three other appeals courts review all of the arguments for federal jurisdiction from the fossil fuel companies. Each appellate court has since rejected the companies’ additional arguments.
Fossil fuel giants are now returning to the Supreme Court with renewed and additional petitions, hoping the highest court will overrule the lower courts’ decisions about where the climate cases should be tried.
Read more from the DeSmog series: Tracking the Lawsuits Fighting for Climate Accountability
Meanwhile, legal developments continue to frustrate the industry’s attempts to evade accountability. Cases filed by Hawaiian communities and by the state of Massachusetts are proceeding to the discovery phase in state courts, a pre-trial process of gathering evidence, during which internal industry documents could surface and shed new light on the extent of the industry’s deceptive behavior. Last month a federal district judge in California, who had previously tossed cases filed by Oakland and San Francisco, issued an order to send the cases, which were revived by a federal appeals court, back to state court. And New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin followed in the footsteps of seven other Democratic state prosecutors in filing a consumer fraud case against ExxonMobil and other oil majors.
A spokesperson for Exxon did not respond to a request for comment. BP America declined to comment.
Judge Kelly’s order to send the District of Columbia’s case back to the lower court is temporarily paused as the oil companies prepare an appeal, as they have every other time a federal judge made a similar ruling.
“Chevron plans to appeal this ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,” Boutrous, Jr. said.
None of these appeals, however, have been successful. Loyola University’s Sokol sees these repeated rejections as further affirmation that local and state governments have the right to try these claims in state courts.
Johl agreed.
“These cases were filed in state court to hold polluters accountable for climate deception under state law,” she said. “And that’s where courts have unanimously agreed they should proceed.”
---
[### DC sues oil companies over climate change
The Hill
https://thehill.com › policy › energy-environment](https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/504515-dc-sues-oil-companies-over-climate-change/)
Jun 25, 2020 — Washington, D.C., sued oil companies ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and Shell over climate change on Thursday. The suit, filed by District Attorney ...
[### DC Is the Latest to Sue Exxon and Big Oil for Climate ...
DeSmog
https://www.desmog.com › 2020/06/25 › district-colu...](https://www.desmog.com/2020/06/25/district-columbia-fraud-lawsuit-exxon-oil-climate-disinformation/)
Jun 25, 2020 — District of Columbia Attorney General Karl A. Racine announced the consumer fraud lawsuit on Thursday, June 25. The lawsuit claims that the four ...
[### District of Columbia sues four oil majors for misleading ...
Reuters
https://www.reuters.com › us-usa-climatechange-oil](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-oil/district-of-columbia-sues-four-oil-majors-for-misleading-consumers-on-climate-change-idUSKBN23W2KO)
Jun 25, 2020 — “The defendants violated the District's consumer protection law by concealing the fact that using fossil fuels threatens the health of District ...
[### Four Things to Know About Washington D.C.'s New ...
Energy In Depth
https://www.energyindepth.org › four-things-to-know...](https://www.energyindepth.org/four-things-to-know-about-washington-d-c-s-new-climate-lawsuit/)
Jun 25, 2020 — Washington, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine sued ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell today for allegedly misleading District consumers ...
[### Four Things to Know About Washington, D.C.'s New ...
EID Climate
https://eidclimate.org › four-things-to-know-about-w...](https://eidclimate.org/four-things-to-know-about-washington-d-c-s-new-climate-lawsuit/)
Jun 25, 2020 — Washington, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine sued ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell today for allegedly misleading District consumers ...
---
---
---
March 20, 2020
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/us/nra-board-subpoena-letitia-james.html
Aug. 6, 2019
With the gun debate intensifying in the wake of last weekend’s mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, the National Rifle Association’s problems deepened Monday evening as the New York attorney general’s office issued a subpoena seeking documents from more than 90 current and former members of the organization’s board.
The subpoena is an escalation of a continuing investigation into the tax-exempt status of the N.R.A., which is chartered in New York, and engulfs the organization’s board of directors in the inquiry. The subpoena seeks financial records and other documents that would shed light on spending decisions made by the board.
The latest moves come in a year when the N.R.A. and its board have been in turmoil. Its finances and political machine are being strained amid a host of legal battles, as well as a rebellion from some donors and members and infighting that has led to the departures of the board’s president, Oliver North, and the N.R.A.’s top lobbyist and second-in-command, Christopher W. Cox.
A spokeswoman for Letitia James, the New York attorney general, who opened the inquiry in April, declined to comment. Ms. James’s office has broad authority to investigate nonprofits, and has been scrutinizing whether the N.R.A. was using funds designated for charitable purposes appropriately, and if payments made to board members, officers and affiliated parties complied with relevant tax laws and fiduciary requirements.
Her office can pursue potential remedies in court; a previous inquiry by Ms. James’s predecessors led to the shuttering of President Trump’s charitable foundation, a far smaller enterprise.
William A. Brewer III, the N.R.A.’s outside counsel, said in a statement: “As we understand it, counsel to the N.R.A. board accepted service of a subpoena to the board that relates to the production of documents and information.”
He added: “Such a request was expected and, as we have said many times, the N.R.A. will cooperate with any reasonable, good faith request for information given the organization’s commitment to good governance.”
The group is also facing a separate inquiry by the attorney general for the District of Columbia, Karl A. Racine, who is focusing on the N.R.A. Foundation, a large affiliated charity chartered in Washington. Its ties to Russia have also been the focus of Congressional inquiries.
The latest development will apply new pressure to the board, which has largely but not uniformly supported Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.’s longtime chief executive, amid the recent power struggle that led to the departures of Mr. North and Mr. Cox. Last week, three board members who had opposed Mr. LaPierre’s management — Sean Maloney, Esther Schneider and Timothy Knight — resigned from the board. On Monday, the N.R.A. disputed a report on a gun blog that its board had been dropped by the insurer who provides insurance against litigation, calling it untrue.
This year, a number of news accounts have raised questions about the N.R.A.’s spending decisions, many approved by its board. In March, The New York Times reported that Mr. North, then the board’s president, had a lucrative financial contract with the N.R.A.’s most important contractor, the advertising firm Ackerman McQueen. (Ackerman and the N.R.A. subsequently embarked on a bitter legal battle.) The Times also reported that the N.R.A. had directed $18 million to a production company in which an N.R.A. official, Tyler Schropp, had a stake.
The organization’s payment practices were further examined in an April story in The New Yorker. And in May, leaks revealed that Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.’s longtime chief executive, billed $275,000 through Ackerman McQueen for purchases at the Zegna luxury men’s wear boutique in Beverly Hills and $267,000 in personal expenses, including flights and limousine service for trips to the Bahamas, Florida, Nevada, Budapest and an Italian lake resort. Payments made by the N.R.A. to its board members have also been an area of continuing scrutiny.
Ms. James’s inquiry has aroused the ire of President Trump, a key N.R.A. ally. He tweeted in April, after the investigation was opened, that Ms. James and New York Governor Andrew M.Cuomo, whose administration is locked in its own legal battle with the N.R.A., were “using the State’s legal apparatus to take down and destroy this very important organization.”
Ms. James’s office, in its own tweet later that day, wrote: “Attorney General Letitia James is focused on enforcing the rule of law. In any case we pursue, we will follow the facts wherever they may lead. We wish the President would share our respect for the law.”
Danny Hakim can be reached at hakim@nytimes.com.
==
wapo
Sections
Democracy Dies in Darkness
National
D.C. attorney general issues subpoenas to NRA, its charitable foundation
By Katie Zezima ,
Carol D. Leonnig and
Keith L. Alexander July 12 2019
The District’s attorney general issued subpoenas Friday to the National Rifle Association and its charitable foundation, putting additional pressure on the embattled gun rights organization from nonprofit regulators.
The office of Attorney General Karl A. Racine is seeking financial documents from the NRA and its foundation. The NRA Foundation is chartered in the District, and the NRA is registered as a nonprofit and does business there.
“The Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia has issued subpoenas to the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) and the NRA Foundation, Inc., as part of an investigation into whether these entities violated the District’s Nonprofit Act,” Racine said in a statement.
He continued: “We are seeking documents from these two nonprofits detailing, among other things, their financial records, payments to vendors, and payments to officers and directors.”
William A. Brewer III, the NRA’s outside counsel, said in a statement that the organization will cooperate with “any appropriate inquiry” into its finances.
“The NRA has full confidence in its accounting practices and commitment to good governance,” Brewer said, noting the organization’s financial statements are audited and that it is “committed to utilizing best practices” in accounting and governance.
Racine’s office has jurisdiction over nonprofits. It can seek court action to dissolve or place into receivership a nonprofit that misuses funds or does not act in accordance with its stated mission.
Racine’s subpoenas come as the organization is under mounting internal and external pressure. They are the second state legal action taken against the NRA in recent months.
In April, New York Attorney General Letitia James also issued subpoenas to the NRA and its foundation seeking financial records about its tax-exempt status. The NRA was chartered in New York in 1871.
Racine’s inquiry into payments to officers and directors comes after The Washington Post reported last month that 18 of the NRA’s 76 board members collected money from the NRA during the past three years, according to tax filings, state charitable reports and NRA correspondence. They include a former National Football League player who received $400,000 for public outreach and firearms training, and a writer who was paid more than $28,000 for articles in NRA publications.
NRA board members are tasked with overseeing the organization’s finances.
[NRA money flowed to board members amid allegedly lavish spending by top officials and vendors]
The NRA is also enmeshed in a lawsuit with New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D), who issued a directive last year urging insurance and financial services companies to review their relationships with the organization. It came after a state investigation found the NRA’s “Carry Guard” insurance [murder insurance] product to be illegal under New York law.
Scrutiny of the organization has also increased on Capitol Hill. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has been investigating the organization, looking for answers about financial and other ties between the organization and Russia. Two Democratic House members have written to NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, stating they were concerned about a “complex web of relationships” between the organization and Russia.
The NRA also has been grappling with growing internal strife in recent months. In the past several weeks, it has seen its top lobbyist resign and its television arm shut down, and has severed all business with its longtime public relations firm, which helped brand the NRA as a hard-edged organization that would defend gun rights at all costs.
The NRA’s top lobbyist, Christopher W. Cox, resigned last month after being accused of being part of an extortion scheme to oust LaPierre. Cox had led the organization’s political and lobbying arm since 2002 and was considered one of its most effective and high-profile leaders. The political arm spent more than $30 million to help elect President Trump.
In April, LaPierre accused former NRA president Oliver North of extortion, claiming North threatened to reveal damaging financial information if LaPierre did not step down and withdraw the NRA from a lawsuit against its longtime and now estranged public relations firm, Ackerman McQueen.
[Newtown massacre divided NRA leaders, foreshadowing split to come]
The organization has been rocked by revelations of exorbitant spending by top executives, including that LaPierre racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in charges at a Beverly Hills clothing boutique and on foreign travel, according to invoices.
North, who stepped down from his post after the allegations, also claimed the NRA spent $24 million in legal bills last year. The allegations come as the organization’s 2018 financial report show that the nonprofit, its four affiliated charities and its political committee ended the year $10.8 million in the red.
The report shows that the NRA increased spending on overhead including legal fees, travel, entertainment and office supplies, while cutting money to its core missions, including gun training and political spending.
Katie Zezima
Katie Zezima is a national correspondent covering drugs, guns, gambling and vice in America. She covered the 2016 election and the Obama White House for The Washington Post. Follow
Carol D. Leonnig
Carol Leonnig is an investigative reporter at The Washington Post, where she has worked since 2000. She won the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for her work on security failures and misconduct inside the Secret Service. Follow
Keith L. Alexander
Keith L. Alexander covers crime and courts, specifically D.C. Superior Court cases, for The Washington Post. Alexander was part of the Pulitzer Prize-winning team that investigated fatal police shootings across the nation in 2015. He joined The Post in 2001. He previously worked as a reporter for USA Today, BusinessWeek and The Dayton Daily News
==