Friday, October 3, 2014

Gun Control Groups Take On NRA, Ramping Up Election Spending

Gun control groups say this is the year they finally go toe-to-toe with the National Rifle Association and match their foe's imposing campaign spending for congressional candidates.
"It's an important issue to segments of voters on both sides" of the gun issue, said Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster. "You don't need to make a huge difference, you just need to make a little difference because these races are all so close."
Few doubt that organizations led by billionaire Michael Bloomberg and the wounded former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., will unleash huge sums in the campaigns' closing weeks to back candidates favoring firearms curbs. They're off to modest starts — unlike the NRA.
Barely a month from Election Day, the nation's most powerful gun rights group has so far reported spending over $10 million for ads and other efforts either for or against more than 60 congressional candidates. The efforts include sending NRA field representatives to gun shows to tout favored candidates.
That spending — which is supposed to be done independently and not coordinated with candidates — makes the NRA the ninth highest spender of more than 300 groups tracked by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors political spending.
Virtually all NRA spending has been to help Republicans. As of Aug. 31 it reported having $18.5 million banked and was still raising money.


  1. $18 mil? Not even 2/3 of Harry Reid's super PAC. Won't see any copy and paste of those articles here though.

    real orlin sellers

  2. "Giffords and Kelly plan getting involved in at least a dozen congressional races this month, including backing incumbent Democratic senators in Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire and North Carolina."

    My guess is that some of that money will be heading to the incumbent of my district, or at least for advertising against his opponent. I sincerely hope that the ARS does one of their attack ads up here. They seem to spend their money against someone instead of for someone by a factor of about four to one,

    The incumbent, Congressman Nolan, who we've talked about here before seems to avoid mentioning Second Amendment issues. He doesn't even include it in the listing of where he stands on issues on his campaign website. As opposed to his challenger, Stuart Mills III.
    So I would heartily support the ARS throwing an attack ad into the race in Minnesota. Keep in mind, that all of this money is in reality only going to undecided voters. Currently, its really too close to call unless you happen to be looking at a poll from a particular party.

    1. Why are you concerned? You told me money has no effect on voting patterns. People want loose gun laws and that's why these gun safety laws don't pass. Of course I disagreed with you because the facts show money does effect voting patterns.

    2. I think these spending campaigns will be very effective. They might even result in "major victories."

      The reason I think that is because apathy is the biggest enemy of the gun control movement. Most people who don't own guns are not sufficiently interested. These ad campaigns can change that.

  3. "Why are you concerned? You told me money has no effect on voting patterns. People want loose gun laws and that's why these gun safety laws don't pass."

    I'm not concerned Anon. As I said, considering my congressman not wanting to talk much on it, I'd welcome extra attention on the issue that such ads would draw. As I've said before, I don't believe any amount of money spent on ads from either side would affect my vote or even yours. It's just the undecided, or possibly the wavering third party voter that all of this money is being directed at.

    1. For a guy who's not concerned you sure are spouting a lot.

    2. It mostly has to do with the time of year. And Mike has a lot to do with it because he's the one that posts the articles. Its also an interesting situation which will show proof of a common claim by gun control advocates. That being that the only reason gun laws aren't passed is because of the big money by gun rights groups.
      We are now seeing elections where gun control advocates are greatly outspending the pro-gun side. Though actually we saw the same extreme outspending in say, Colorado during the two recall elections they had, and even with the standard advantage of incumbency, they were replaced.
      Though I'm sure if the hoped for wins through massive spending don't come about, someone will come up with some explanation that doesn't involve it being the will of the people.

    3. Right, like the racist garbage that Nugent and the NRA spews is the will of the people.