3
Gun lobby outspends gun-control advocates
Bumper stickers hang for sale at the Second Amendment Foundation booth an annual NRA convention. The National Rifle Association spent $24 million this last election cycle.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
Yesterday, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she plans to introduce a bill that would ban assault weapons. A similar ban expired, back in 2004.
That legislation is sure to attract attention -- and money -- from two special interest groups: the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association. And if you look at those two groups side-by-side, comparing the resources they have, it will be far from a fair fight.
The NRA is the largest gun lobby, and it’s got a reputation in this town.
“The word in Washington is that crossing the National Rifle Association is dangerous,” says Graham Wilson, who Boston University’s political science department.
It has been known to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into a single congressional race. According to Lee Drutman, of the Sunlight Foundation, during the last election cycle, the NRA spent more than $24 million. “The money on one side is enormous. The money on the other side is tiny.”
In contrast, Drutman says, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence -- the largest gun control organization -- spent just $5,816 during the election. Total.
Neither group responded to our requests for interviews.
The NRA’s cash advantage could serve as a powerful check against any new gun control efforts. According to Sheila Krumholz, who runs the Center for Responsive Politics, the NRA is already gearing up for the 2014 midterm elections.
“The NRA alone has given to more than 290 candidates already this cycle so far,” she says. “So, that’s a lot of money in a lot of pockets in Washington.”
Drutman calls the NRA a “textbook political organization,” because its members make it so effective. There are more than four million of them, and the NRA’s membership has grown after other mass shootings.
“The NRA gets more members at times when gun control laws are on the table,” he says. “In the wake of Columbine, they increased their membership by about 50 percent.”
When it comes to money and members, there’s not an organization on the other side of the gun control issue that compares.
it's relentless! we need to change the way we eat do we? Too much carbon? Need more 'direct sourcing'? Great!
Another great saving we can realize are all the people who will starve and die early from having less food.
But boho yuppies with their heirloom tomatoes will do fine. They can munch away while listening to their virtues being confirmed on NPR.
If you ask a different question, namely, should we look again at the de-institutionalization laws spearheaded by the ACLU in the 1970's how then would the funding imbalance look? On one side the NRA. On the other, virtually every democrat organization from lawyers to teachers unions. This kind of thought would not occur naturally to the producers at Marketplace who personify the liberal msm approach to all issues and can only imagine the debate in terms of gun regulation. And I predict if mental health does force its way onto the agenda orgs like MP will define it in terms of needing more resources rather then addressing the laws that make putting people who are a danger to themselves and others in an institution.
