The survey results I spoke about in this post would seem to strongly indicate that NAR members do not want to "contribute" another $40/year for throwing at politicians, whatever the motives.
Well, the question has been answered, and no, NAR didn't listen. They'll be picking our pockets for this $40 and spending it for whatever they want. I do wish, as this post discusses, that we could get status as forced union members, as maybe we would pick up some ability to resist things like this. I am proud of what I do, but I'm a member of NAR because I am forced to be to do business in my MLS. While I would not yet label myself as anti-NAR, I'm feeling a mysterious pull in that direction, or maybe it's just the the hand in my wallet pocket.
I’m an NAR Director & voted in favor of the expanded programs which the dues increase will fund (along with 80+% of the other elected NAR Directors sent by their local & state associations). The $40 will not “be thrown at politicians.” Voluntary RAPAC donations are used at the local, state & national levels for donations to politicians. Nor will the $40 be spent on “whatever they want.” The $40 will be in a dedicated fund & accounted for separately from NAR dues (never been done before by NAR). The $40 will fund issue advocacy & independent expenditures (⅓ by NAR & 2/3 by state & locals). The $40 will be used to defeat the likes of the repeal of the mortgage interest deduction (MID), real estate transfer fees & providing positive support to pro-REALTOR® incumbents & candidates. These funds will be used to preserve our ability to conduct business all across our country & the decisions to do so will be made (& the funding primarily expended by) local & state associations.You brought up one interesting point in your post – that being your desire to “get status as [a] forced union member[s]. With respect, I think you miss the larger issue – that being that we can now legally compete against the folks who already utilize these kinds of strategies against our industry.You may not like having to pay an extra $3.33 a month to insure a level playing field on which to conduct our business – that is your right. It’s also your right to not be involved in the process – but rather, lob criticism & create dissent. However it is not your right to make inflammatory & incorrect statements about being forced to be a member of NAR. Your choice to join your local MLS apparently included their requirement that you become a REALTOR® – If you don’t wish to pay REALTOR® dues then quit your MLS – I imagine that’s the only point at which you will truly value the benefit of being a REALTOR® (& of bearing your infinitesimally small .0000001% of the national overhead). Bill Arnold
Bill,
I am forced to be a member of NAR if I want practitioner access to the local MLS. Dues don’t bother me. It’s how they’re used and a leadership that seems to not be listening.
However, I’m sure that you and those who pushed this through believe that it’s good for association members. I agree that it probably is, but I have a somewhat different view of whether what’s good for us is also always good for our customers and clients.
Thanks for the detailed comment.
Jim
> The $40 will not “be thrown at politicians.”
> support to pro-REALTOR® incumbents & candidates.
Ahem.
Arizona is a right to work state. We’ll be rid of you soon.
Whatever the reason. The cost of doing business is incredible. It is greedy of the NAR to raise dues while we are in a recession.
NAR doesn’t listen to it’s members. A huge number of Realtors were against this increase and Mr. Arnold knows it. But Mr. Arnold and his group seem to think they know what best for us. Typically “elitist” attitude.
I wonder if Mr. Arnold would consider requiring NAR to tell Boards not to tie MLS access to NAR membership. I’ll bet members would leave NAR in droves. We are held hostage in order to play in a level field. Please tell me how that doesn’t smell like collusion.
But like most NAR directors they will never put their money where their mouth is. If NAR is so great than untie the MLS and see what happens. I’m betting you won’t.
Ray,
Thanks for the comment. Others have related my opposition to a money issue. I would gladly continue to pay the same basic dues to my local to support it and the system that keeps the MLS accurate and valuable to members.
I would even pay the extra $40/year – TO THE MLS, if they need the money to survive or improve. I just don’t want to pay it for lobbying that the entire membership hasn’t approved. Thanks again,
Jim
According to NAR, the initiative was launched partially in response to last years Supreme Court decision, the celebrated Citizens United Case. As forecast, that decision stands as a game changer in the lobbying world granting corporations the same rights as individuals to contribute to political campaigns. The price of doing business has just gone up and if you want to stay at the table with the serious players, you’d better step up your game.
Sell Home Online
Sell Home Online,
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a First Amendment case. The Court’s decision will allow corporations or unions to air material on TV and in Satellite or Cable media mentioning a candidate’s name within 60 days of an election, previously banned by the FEC.
Upholding free speech was the focal point, and this case did that. Unfortunately, if enough money is spent in commercials touting a totally healthy diet consisting only of ice cream, candy and cookies, there would be a rush to the grocery stores for these items, with very unhealthy results.
I’m sure that NAR will use this money extracted from members who disagree with the activity to run massive amounts of advertising saying it’s always the right time for anyone to buy a home, and to support candidates promising to promote NAR’s interests, even if they in some cases are ice cream, candy and cookies.