The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Influential Special-Interest Groups (example: ABA): Join or Oppose?

Bartholomew Roberts · October 11, 2008, 09:34 AM

During law school, I joined the American Bar Association because their student rates were very favorable (less than $30) and it gave me a tremendous amount of information about the profession I had invested a lot of money in.

The extra information and benefits were more than worth the money I paid them. The downside is that the ABA has basically been hijacked by people who have a more socialized and communitarian view of society than I do and they are using the ABA to forward a lot of those goals. They aren't totally unopposed within the ABA; but they are certainly going to win most of the issues they choose to bring up within that organization.

Despite being a special-interest group, the ABA serves a lot of important functions. It frequently proposes "model" legislation that is adopted by the states. It is influential in developing legal theory and its stamp of approval on federal judges has been an important lever in breaking the logjam of Senate approval on several occasions.

However, soon my student membership expires and the ABA will want real money. While I was a student, I rationalized that the amount of money I sent them was too small to do much damage and it was important to influence the organization towards a stronger individual rights view as well as obtain information. Now, however, I would have to send them some fairly serious dues and I can no longer convince myself that the money is insignificant. It bothers me a lot to send that kind of money to an organization that basically lobbied against us on the Heller decision.

So my question is, is it better to be inside a powerful, influential organization and have some tiny mitigating effect on their policies while at the same time giving them more power and money by virtue of your money and membership; or is it better to stand outside of that organization and have no mitigating effect; but not contribute to its misdeeds either?

For RKBA organizations, I have always argued that it is imperative to be a part of the organization and change what you don't like. Am I a hypocrite if I choose to avoid that here?

It seems that the key factor in either strategy is strength-in-numbers. As an individual, neither strategy will be particularly effective unless I can get like-minded people to join with me; but how do you go about organizing dissatisfied outsiders and convincing them to become a part of the group (or vice versa)?

October 11, 2008, 09:34 AM	#1
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	Influential Special-Interest Groups (example: ABA): Join or Oppose? During law school, I joined the American Bar Association because their student rates were very favorable (less than $30) and it gave me a tremendous amount of information about the profession I had invested a lot of money in. The extra information and benefits were more than worth the money I paid them. The downside is that the ABA has basically been hijacked by people who have a more socialized and communitarian view of society than I do and they are using the ABA to forward a lot of those goals. They aren't totally unopposed within the ABA; but they are certainly going to win most of the issues they choose to bring up within that organization. Despite being a special-interest group, the ABA serves a lot of important functions. It frequently proposes "model" legislation that is adopted by the states. It is influential in developing legal theory and its stamp of approval on federal judges has been an important lever in breaking the logjam of Senate approval on several occasions. However, soon my student membership expires and the ABA will want real money. While I was a student, I rationalized that the amount of money I sent them was too small to do much damage and it was important to influence the organization towards a stronger individual rights view as well as obtain information. Now, however, I would have to send them some fairly serious dues and I can no longer convince myself that the money is insignificant. It bothers me a lot to send that kind of money to an organization that basically lobbied against us on the Heller decision. So my question is, is it better to be inside a powerful, influential organization and have some tiny mitigating effect on their policies while at the same time giving them more power and money by virtue of your money and membership; or is it better to stand outside of that organization and have no mitigating effect; but not contribute to its misdeeds either? For RKBA organizations, I have always argued that it is imperative to be a part of the organization and change what you don't like. Am I a hypocrite if I choose to avoid that here? It seems that the key factor in either strategy is strength-in-numbers. As an individual, neither strategy will be particularly effective unless I can get like-minded people to join with me; but how do you go about organizing dissatisfied outsiders and convincing them to become a part of the group (or vice versa)?