So what I have learned from some of the comments here is that the AMA fumbled this in the early days by attempting to coopt the drone crowd. I would like to learn more about this and see some evidence that supports that assertion. If true, then it backfired twice, since it seems to have alienated both a segment of traditional RC modelers as well as drone enthusiasts themselves (a group that I never fully understood since in the same breath they both accuse the AMA of not doing enough to protect the hobby while dismissing the need for the organization and it dues).

As you say, we will never know for sure how this would have played out had an "alternate" course been taken. However, when I listen to comments from Jim Williams (who certainly was in a position to know what was going on), I get the distinct impression that it was the security types who were actually running the table and that neither the AMA or the FAA themselves had much influence over the agenda. It is clear (based on the original NPRM language) that this group really was less concerned about safety than they were about accountability and control.

By all outward appearances, once the NPRM was released, the AMA had one of the most organized and consistent program of lobbying against the security driven approach. How influential this was, we cannot be sure, but the end results do speak for themselves in that we have a much more balanced rule. It is my opinion that the AMA contributed to this effort in a positive manner.

I do confess a certain apathy for the goings on in Muncie. Maybe I should take a harder look at that, but to be fair, I really don't care all that much about the magazine or the internal politics of the AMA. Could they use our money more wisely? Probably. Is that keeping me up at night? Not really. When compared to other forms of entertainment (like Netflix or any other subscription service), the dues are modest.