Just What Is The NRA's Hold Over Members Of Congress?....

[global1]

Is it money or members votes?

[DetlefK]

1. Two Reasons:

1. Donations. The NRA has become an outfit of the gun-industry.

2. Cultural clout. It's the same as with the Bible: Praise the Lord's name in public and everybody will automatically assume that you are a good person. Praise the Almighty Gun and people will assume that you are a defender of the 2nd Amendment, which automatically means that you are a patriot without par.

[Vinca]

2. IMO, it's mostly $$$$$$$$.

Any of these "gun legislators" would flip in a heartbeat if their kid was among the victims. It's just like war. They love it, but they don't send their children off to die for stupid reasons.

[Lee-Lee]

7. If you look at the numbers the NRA isn't that big a player finacially

See my post below- its far more about how dedicated and active the members are.

[PeteSelman]

3. The fact that they will get you tossed out of congress if you cross them.

Particularly in rural areas. If you don't toe their line, you're out. No congressperson wants to lose their cushy job. Easier to go with the (cash) flow.

[hobbit709]

4. A politician $tand$ firmly behind hi$ Spon$or$

[hatrack]

5. Money (of course) and the implicit threat of unleashed zombie voters . . .

In the event that any votes should displease the ever-so-sensitive NRA and their pet manufacturers.

[Lee-Lee]

6. Its huge membership numbers that are politically active. Gun control advocates largely don't

They have somewhere between 5 and 6 million members.

That is a big number- and since it is 100% voluntary that is between 5 and 6 million people who active enough and care enough to join and financially support them.

That is a huge base of people who are active and invested enough in an issue to financially support it and are far more likely to vote than the general population is.

To compare the AFL-CIO has around 2x the membership numbers- but for many the AFL-CIO and their union is just a thing they have to join and they wouldn't if they didn't have to so those are more or less apathetic. There are no apathetic members in an organization that is 100% voluntary to join and focused on a single issue or area.

When they have their national convention of a rally, thousands show up. Gun control supporters rarely manage to break out of the dozens for their events. When the NRA had their convention in Nashville last year around 80,000 people showed up. The Moms Demand Action counter protest barely made it to triple digits.

This article from the New Yorker sums it up well with this quote:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/taking-on-the-n-r-a

In many accounts, the power of the N.R.A. comes down to money. The organization has an annual operating budget of some quarter of a billion dollars, and between 2000 and 2010 it spent fifteen times as much on campaign contributions as gun-control advocates did. But money is less crucial than you’d think. The N.R.A.’s annual lobbying budget is around three million dollars, which is about a fifteenth of what, say, the National Association of Realtors spends. The N.R.A.’s biggest asset isn’t cash but the devotion of its members. Adam Winkler, a law professor at U.C.L.A. and the author of the 2011 book “Gunfight,” told me, “N.R.A. members are politically engaged and politically active. They call and write elected officials, they show up to vote, and they vote based on the gun issue.” In one revealing study, people who were in favor of permits for gun owners described themselves as more invested in the issue than gun-rights supporters did. Yet people in the latter group were four times as likely to have donated money and written a politician about the issue.

Its not the money as much as the people who get active. The NRA comes in at 74th on the Open Secrets list of heavy hitter donors, well behind a huge number of labor unions and other groups, so while they have money they are not a huge player in that- the SEIU gave 10x as much in political donations as the NRA did for the same period, despite the NRA having 3x as many members.

Bottom line- people opposed to gun control care more about the issue and are far more likely to do something about it than people in favor of gun control. The NRA is the group most of them join, and who knows how many don't pay membership dues every year who still listen to what the NRA says. That is a lot of votes at stake, especially in rural districts and swing districts where small numbers of votes can have a big impact. In a conservative district a candidate the NRA doesn't back will rarely make it past the primary on the GOP side and often on the Democrat side.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. And their members are spread out, while those in favor of gun control tend to be packed into

urban districts.

[global1]

13. Surely A Counter Force Of Gun Control Advocates Can Be Put Together To Rival The NRA.....

Using Google I read where NRA membership is nearing 5 million for 2015.

Don't you think a counter force or movement can be put together of gun control advocates that would easily meet or beat that number of members. I'm thinking that if money is the biggest factor for NRA's power - that an organization can be put together that could out money the NRA.

Such an organization would use the same tactics in Congress - rating the Congressmen and Senators on their gun control beliefs and their voting record. Provide donation money for their campaigns to keep them in Congress - if they vote for meaningful gun control laws. Wouldn't that take the wind out of the sails of the NRA?

If a Congressman or Senator knew that the money that they've been taking from the NRA would be available from another source and that their job wouldn't be in jeopardy - wouldn't they be more apt to vote for more meaningful gun control laws? Such an organization can fund primary candidates that were for meaningful gun control. Basically turn the system around on the NRA.

I still am of the belief that many of those Congressmen and Senators that now vote with the NRA - do it while holding their noses. They are just protecting their jobs. I believe that if an alternative source of money and support could come from an organization that equalizes the NRA - that they can be pulled over to more meaningful gun control. I believe that many of them that now vote with the NRA don't really want to - but feel compelled to in order to save their jobs.

If we can put a man on the moon - surely we can create and support a counter force to the NRA.

[Lee-Lee]

14. Gun control advocates have been trying that for decades

And have yet to come to even a tenth of the NRA's size.

[global1]

17. Well You Convinced Me - We Should Just Give Up Trying.......(sarcasm)nt

[Lee-Lee]

19. You have to make people care enough to act

So far, that's not happened.

[global1]

22. I'm Thinking That The Number Of Mass Shootings And Terrorist Activities We Been Experiencing.....

is starting to make people 'care enough to act' and we have to keep at it to even the playing field with the NRA.

Again - no one is talking about taking away people's guns - just some meaningful gun control measures to minimize the staggering numbers of people that are killed by guns every year.

[Snobblevitch]

31. Gun control advocates outspent RKBA supporters in Colorado

by 6 - 1 margin and still lost the recall elections.

[d_r]

26. NRA followers will vote on a that single issue

[TeddyR]

28. Good post

And in addition to the 5-6 million dues-paying members, there are a lot of people who aren't NRA members but strongly support their position on the Second Amendment.

[aikoaiko]

8. Primaries for Senate and House seats, mostly republican

That is where they hold the most sway.

They can mobilize their members and pay for enough ads to remove almost any republican if they can be labeled anti-gun rights

[d_r]

27. in gerrymandered house districts

[Lurks Often]

9. The ability to get them voted out of their cushy jobs

Google Jack Brooks or Tom Foley, both are considered to have lost their seats for their support of the 1994 AWB, something even Bill Clinton has acknowleged. Brooks was the most senior Representative ever to have lost a general election for the U.S. House and Foley was the first Speaker of the House since 1862 to be defeated in a re-election campaign in a district he had held for the previous 30 years

Google Ann Richards, who lost to George W Bush in part because she opposed CCW in Texas

[RandiFan1290]

11. Death threats?

Seems to work for the Bundy terror cell.

[hack89]

12. They can mobilize voters, especially people that do not regularly vote.

pissed off, motivated voters are the only thing politicians fear.

[ileus]

15. It's the 50-90 million gun owners that aren't members they fear.

[global1]

16. And What's The Population Of The U.S.?.....

I'm thinking that the non-gun owners outnumber the gun owners. Wouldn't that instill some fear as well?

[Lee-Lee]

18. Most non-gun owners are apathetic at best on the issue

Some have no problem with guns and just don't own them, some voice support for some gun control as a concept but rarely make it a priority when looking at a candidate.

People who are anti-gun and make it a serious issue are simply a small percentage of the voting population.

[global1]

23. The NRA Didn't Get To Where They Are Today Without A Good Marketing Campaign To Get The Support.....

they have and it didn't happen overnight for them either. A concerted effort is needed to mount a similar meaningful gun control initiative is needed and it is achievable.

More and more Americans are getting pissed off enough for their safety and the safety of their families that momentum is building to make this happen.

Look at the efforts that have been made over the years to stop people from smoking. That didn't happen overnight - but less and less people are smoking these days.

Government stepped in and put warnings on packs of cigarettes. Taxes went up. TV advertising was banned. Public health campaigns were initiated to make people aware of the health hazards.

The same can be done for gun-control. It only takes commitment and effort to make it happen.

[TeddyR]

29. I don't find guns and cigarettes to be an apt comparison

Setting aside the fact that ownership of one is protected by the Constitution, the tobacco companies lied for years about the dangers of tobacco, ultimately losing lawsuits on the issue, and the government ultimately required warning labels explaining the dangers. I doubt anyone is unaware of the fact that if someone shoots you with a gun that it is at the very least going to hurt and potentially cause death, and if they don't realize this then I question their intelligence.

And gun ownership is increasing while public support for stricter gun control laws is decreasing. There is broad support for the actions taken by President Obama but support for stricter gun control laws is at best pretty evenly divided. See this poll - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/views-gun-control-polling-summary-poll/story?id=36096424, or this one - http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politics/gun-control-poll-americans/index.html. As others have pointed out, gun ownership rights are vastly expanding at the state level. For example, Texas became the 44th (or 45th?) state to permit open carry of firearms.

Of course, there is disagreement over the impact of gun control laws -- I tend to think that they do some good, and those like the president proposed are worth pursuing -- but the reality is that much of the gun violence isn't directly related to gun control laws. For example, Vermont has some of the most permissive gun control laws in the country but the murder rate is relatively low, while the District of Columbia and Chicago historically had some of the most restrictive gun laws and still suffered from some of the highest murder rates in the country.

[TipTok]

20. Strong, organized, motivated and numerous single issue voters...

Those folks plus the actual 2nd Amendment makes much of what the control crowd wants to do unfeasible.

The actual NRA lobby money is a drop in the proverbial bucket.

[Iggo]

21. Dinero.

[beevul]

24. Its people.

People who support the right to keep and bear arms, find it deeply personal, when others propose interfering.

This isn't rocket science.

Only a few years ago, the nra was down to 3.5 million-ish members.

Now they're over 5 million.


Attacking amendment 2, whether real or perceived, only makes them stronger, and makes their numbers grow.

[Gawdless Pinko Lib]

25. Seriously? LOL!

[Johonny]

30. I always assume it was simply another fashionable way to be inclusive

Thus the NRA is more just inclusive symbolism and their real power is more a cult like status. Just as in the late 80s early 90s joining a megachurch was a sign you were doing the moral conservative thing. Becoming a member of the NRA is more and more just another conservative token that you are one of them. Getting an endorsement from the NRA is a rubber stamp that "your a proper conservative". Also, much like everything else in the GOP apparatus they get vastly more air time than their real influence. The GOP support the NRA because their voters support the NRA. Just as the GOP supports megachurch fundies because their voters support megachurch fundies. More and more the GOP is not so much a political organization but an inclusive cult. You need to believe the right things, donate the right way and be a member of the right organizations. Having an NRA card is another way to signal to the cult you are one of them. Meanwhile members of the NRA are making lots of $$$ just as those preachers did/do. They give a little back to politicians but more and more the NRA is about selling guns and ammo to people that really want guns and ammo because they are afraid. They are a marketing arm of the gun industry. Fear markets their guns and it motivates GOP voters so it was sort of bound to happen that they'd become linked in that cult like world.

[Octafish]

32. Soylent Green

[LanternWaste]

33. 3.5 million in lobbying and 28 million in outside spending

Contributions: $984,152; Lobbying: $3,360,000
Outside Spending (independent expenditures or electioneering communications in the current election cycle): $28,212,718
Lobbying: $3,360,000

Contributions to candidates: $810,462
Contributions to Leadership PACs: $26,900
Contributions to parties: $141,790


https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082

Single-issue voting is also a good branding method they've sold to myopic voters.