Did the National Rifle Association Buy Congress?
ChicagoBusiness.com recently reported that the Joyce Foundation is the last bastion of philanthropy countering the National Rifle Association’s congressional influence, allegedly bought by political spending. Ellen Alberding, Joyce’s president, believes the Tucson mass murder is an opportunity to attract more anti-gun money in order to “make a difference in balancing out the dialogue.”:
She plans new efforts to tap a “silent majority” she believes favors more restrictive gun laws, particularly hunters. “They can be useful partners, credible partners when talking about issues like high-capacity magazines and .50-caliber rifles.”
The article continues with the “imbalance” portrayal, saying Joyce “is outspent roughly 100 to 1 by the NRA alone, not to mention other gun rights groups and the $28-billion gun manufacturing industry.”
This article examines each talking point, using Open Secrets data to separate fact from fiction.
“The silent majority supports gun control”
The “silent majority” claim is curious, because post-Tucson polls indicate historically low support for gun control. Rasmussen found that 29% believed more gun control would help prevent similar tragedies, while 62% believed it wouldn’t; 36% supported stricter gun control, but 56% opposed it. When Gallup asked if the tragedy “would have been prevented with stricter gun laws,” 20% agreed and 72% disagreed.
These responses are reasonable. Recently, one suicide bomber killed “at least 35” and “injured over 150 people” at Russia’s biggest airport. To maximize body count, bombs beat guns.
“$28-billion gun manufacturing industry”
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the gun manufacturers’ trade association, contributed to federal candidates’ campaigns in two election cycles since 1990. Open Secrets reports that the NSSF PAC didn’t exist until 2010, and NSSF has spent under $1.7M total on lobbying since 1998, the earliest lobbying data available.
Open Secrets lists firearms makers under “Misc. Manufacturing & Distributing.” Since 1990 their total political spending is $4.7M. As shown in Table 1, the entire industry spent a total of $6.9M on campaigns, lobbying, and PACs, but this doesn’t equal one law firm’s expenditures, as discussed later.
“Hunters support gun control”
In the NRA’s February America’s First Freedom magazine, Dave Kopel notes how anti-rights groups claim hunters’ support. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) recently filed a lawsuit to force the Environmental Protection Agency to ban lead ammunition. The CBD claimed hunter support, but Kopel noted that Project Gutpile “appears to be the project of just one California hunter.”
Another “hunters” organization was the American Hunters and Shooters Association, which endorsed Obama for president. Google lists them, but the web site is gone.
“The NRA outspends its political opponents”
Open Secrets reports that the NRA spent a total of $128M on federal politics (campaign contributions, lobbying, and PACs). But NRA membership numbers get downplayed in order to sell readers on the mythology of a special interest cadre called the “gun lobby.” The NRA currently has 4.3M members.
While a substantial amount, the NRA’s total political spending doesn’t match one trial lawyers’ organization, as discussed below.
“Joyce Foundation represents popular demand for gun control”
The Joyce Foundation’s 2008 financial statement shows it has no public membership. Joyce’s 501 (c)(3) status exempts it from federal income taxes. The IRS notes:
“To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code…it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.”
The IRS says one of the “exempt purposes” of a 501(c)(3) is: “eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law….”[Emphasis added]
I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but it’s not about guns. It’s about control.
Keep your powder dry.
Did the left buy/ infiltrate the NRA? I look forward to reading this article.
I’m wondering that too.
Policy of the NRA has allowed the sale of expired members personal data and drafting of local and state firearms legislation for many years. Be advised that any legislation other than a mirror of the second amendment is by design contrary to the “shall not be infringed” people’s mandamus there in. Infiltration of patriotic institutions is nothing new. Freedom’s dues “shall be paid” primarily by sustained vigilance.
I wonder too, the NRA will compromise on our rights until there is nothing left to compromise on.
And one of the posters above is correct, it is about control. Safest place for some loon to go shoot up is a “Gun Free Zone”.
What part of “Shall not be infringed” do these people have a problem understanding?
“The “silent majority” claim is curious, because post-Tucson polls indicate historically low support for gun control.”
The ~290,000,000 firearms in the hands of Americans speak the truth.
One more thing, there is a reason Americans detest lawyers.
Their character becomes evident when any new or amended legislation cultivates more parasitic opportunity for lawyers. Their past support for anti gun groups found at should verify that their greed has been compounded by fear of repeated armed attacks on all officers of the court.
The NRA picked its share of losers last Nov., hee hee
Did the left buy the NRA?? I doubt that, but it has certainly made headway in infiltration. The NRA actually considered supporting HARRY REID in the 2010 election, while gleefully selling out actual Americans interested in Constitutional rights by making deals with the Democrat devil. How many dropped their NRA membership over the past year, I don’t know. But I make 1!!!
Keep in mind that harry Reid has been a very big second amendment guy. He was very instrumental in supporting construction of the largest outdoor gun range in the US. The NRA is about the second amendment, it does not get into issues like abortion, the environment, etc… That’s why it has been friendly to Reid, who supports the NRA. That being said, the NRA did NOT back Reid in his last election.
Yeah, that’s what they told me when I refused to contribute because they were supporting HR. My reply to them was that he will destroy all our freedoms including the second amendment, just give him time.
james you are right on, but you know even satan lets some good things happen. Then your in his trap!
No they didn’t…they put word out that they were considering it, and that raised a stink.
Harry may be a 2nd amendment guy…but it’s his total picture that I personally disapprove of.
…it’s like supporting/not supporting a political party strictly because of their views on abortion. you have to take in the full picture of how your life and nation will be affected for the entirety of their views and actions.
You mean they listened and responded to their base? But, but, but I thought the NRA was a top-down organization that doesn’t listen to the grass roots?
http://www.nationalgunrights.org/about-us-2/
NRA gave $5000 to Harry’s campaign. I would say that was supporting him…
Harry voted for Sotomayer and Kagan. Both are virulently anti-2nd Amendment. So tell me again how helping put in a range but voting for anti-2nd jurists is supporting the Constitution.
And NRA did not endorse Reid for 2010, in the end. Reid has in the past been supportive of 2AM. Likely he is turning more and more into a statist, like NY Gillibrand, who was NRA endorsed when in the House. Too much time in DC. It sometimes takes a bit to register that an ally is turning on you. Happens. Most people have experienced this sometime in their life: a friend or lover, etc.
The NRA is not the same as the one we became life time members in…
It sure is not!
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/02/20112375421439250.html
NRA: It’s good to live like a king – Rather than acknowledging their membership base, the NRA seems to do what it can to simply make the most profit.
An op/ed from al Jazeera is your expert source? Do better than that.
grow up tim…this is silly stuff you’re posting
I’m happy to see you got it
Just think, if HR would have lost it would be senate majority leader Shummer
You watch the news and every day illegal immigrants are becoming a larger criminal population, desparation may have something to do with it. And states that are hard pressed to find anyone wanting to buy junk bonds are releasing more criminals from prison and no one can fool us that desparation will soon follow. And the Joyce Foundation is busying themselves attacking law abiding taxpayers and the NRA that support their 2nd amendment right? Sounds like a misdirected group to us.
I find it funny that the NRA and Tea Party have two things in common,
Both are Genuine Grass Roots organizations which can survive from base membership alone and do not require corporate support to continue. (Unlike the Seria Club, Rainbow Coalition, and many other various sundry liberal organizations)
And Both receive the Disdain of Elitests with continuous accusations of ominous Corporate Support.
They certainly dislike us but I don’t think they have any more disdain for me than I do for them. The title of the article tells me they’re just trying another direction to make some headway since they’ve lost all other battles nationally. However there are stupid states like New Jersey, Illinois and New York but stupid is as stupid does. There’s also someone who mentioned illegals and convicts being let out of prison. Yep, it will get more dangerous and self defense will be needed. I know the crime staistics are being “cooked” to make the country look safer so they can justify their position.
Yeah, except for all the others, the NRA is an evil lobbying group.
Tyranny always begins with well meaning civilized groups who seek to rid us of pesky weapons. In the Real World, self defense is a reality, whether you live in a city or in the middle of a wilderness.
There will be no peace as long as some seek to outlaw the right of self defense. The Supreme Court said so.
Did it ever occur to the Joyce Foundation (this is rhetorical) or John McShame, for that matter, that the reason one group can outspend another is that brilliance of the free market. We gun owners buy membership to the NRA, and in return they use that money to advise us on the subversive movements of the antis and their whores in congress. In other words, its easy to see which side the silent majority is on, we vote with our checkbook. Sorry, Joyce Foundation, you’ll have to find a couple more sympathetic, uber-rich, leftist billionaires in order to keep up.
You act surprised that our congress could be bought. Not only our congress but our president can and is bought. Just one example look at the easy access to our southern border even though we know that is where most of the drugs flow into our country from. Not to worry Janet tells us it is getting better, she checks every ones passport as they sneak across our border. Have a lot more examples but you would not believe them any way.
Robert Heinlein’s definition of an honest politician is one who “stays bought.”
Their problem is that even uberrich billionaires have one vote.
NRA or not, the American people have tired of these stupid games. Those American guns pouring into Mexico seem to have been sent there by the ATF, which somehow lost track of them. How much of my tax money did that waste? Why does that agency even exist in an era of trillion dollar deficits?
Meanwhile, Michael Bloomberg remains unindicted for his violation of Federal law arranging straw purchases in Arizona. The city is broke, the roads unplowed, and the kids undereducated, but the mayor has 3 chefs and a free pass.
The subtext here is that the Left really believes “The NRA” (which they simplemindedly equate in toto with “The Gun Lobby”) just “buys influence”. Guess why? because that’s what THEY do. You look at the Joyce “Whining Mommy” Foundation, and Darth Soros’ “Communist Society Institute”, etc. etc. and you’ll find that THEY exist only by dint of vast infusions of cash from leftist Ruling Class types – cash which they then hand over to equally leftist, equally ruling-class politicians. They just can’t *conceive* of even the *possibility* that the “Gun Lobby” is comprised of millions of gun-owners, tens of thousands of whom are activists. They’ve *never* seen *anything* like that on *their* planet, so, in typical insular moonbat fashion, they just assume we’re just like them.
Let’s not clue them in… They’re so CUTE sitting around in the dark, singing their moonbat tunes…
A.50 cal. rifle enables a patriot to potentially take out a stalinist at distances of hundreds of yards.That potential capability, rightly frightens liberals,who fear that once the coming liberal-induced social collapse begins, they will be targeted.Hence the rabid cries to ban the people’s “liberty teeth.”The Gifford incident is an excuse, as is Mexico for disarming potential patriots.I love watching this scum quake in their pants!
“She plans new efforts to tap a “silent majority” she believes favors more restrictive gun laws, particularly hunters.”
Silly, that is why it is an enumerated right specified in an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If we substitute “establishment of a state-funded religion”, “complete prohibition on petitioning the Government for redress of any grievance”, “restrictions on free assembly”, “censorship of speech or media”, “forced feeding and housing of troops in our homes”, “search and seizure without probable cause”, “private trials without juries and without the benefit of counsel”, “excessive bail”, “cruel and unusual punishment”, “abolishing all state laws that conflict with any Federal law” or any other nasty concept that a majority may desire for “more restrictive gun laws”, would that make the argument any more appropriate? We are a republic with a Constitution for a reason.