Gun control was outspent. By 13 to 1, turns out.

[Robb]

Gun rights groups pumped $3.8 million in federal lobbying this year — a 122% spike in spending over the final months of 2012 — as they fought to roll back gun-control measures advocated by President Obama and Democrats in Congress in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., tragedy, a new analysis shows.

Gun-control groups also increased their lobbying activity dramatically, but their spending, totaling nearly $276,000 in the first quarter of 2013, represents a tiny fraction of what gun rights groups are investing in the legislative fight, according to the tally by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political money.

Read More: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/02/lobbying-nra-national-association-for-gun-rights/2130047/

Get it? You want to know why gun control legislation failed?

The gun lobby spent more money lobbying the fuckers who voted on it.

"Gun rights" groups spent more money in three months than the gun control movement has in the last 5 years.

There's no grass-roots "gunz are teh awesome" movement. It's pure theater, the amplification of loonies online and a handful carrying weapons on streetcorners and yelling in town hall meetings.

It comes down to MONEY. And they spent more. They spent enough to counter the will of the overwhelming majority of the country.

You think this matters?



No.

But this does:

[BainsBane]

1. K&r

[graham4anything]

2. Mike Bloomberg will be full steam ahead in 2014

and the people who argue against Mike Bloomberg all have one thing in common-every single one just about wants NO gun control done (except for the reciprical which the NRA wants
to get rid of the good states like NY laws.)

[BainsBane]

4. The gunners were claiming

Bloomberg spent far more than the gun lobby last year. Clearly BS.

[graham4anything]

7. Yup. He was just testing the waters in a few states. 2014 and 2016 is the key

[BainsBane]

10. speak of the devil

[premium]

29. Hahahahaha.

I saw what you did there.

[EOTE]

34. Uhhh, that's entirely incorrect.

I am a strong advocate of gun control and I'm very perturbed by much of what Bloomberg does. He's been completely silent on Stop and Frisk and worrying about meaningless crap like sugared drink sizes. I'm all for whatever Bloomberg does to advance the gun control debate, but to act like his detractors simply don't want gun control is an absolute joke.

[morningfog]

3. Thank you every member of the NRA.

Yes, you. I'd you are a member, no matter the excuse, you are responsible for this failure. Btw, fuck you.

[JaneyVee]

5. PLEASE don't tell me there is a gun rights group named NAGR.

[Robb]

14. I know.

[Electric Monk]

17. Reminds me of an episode of South Park...

[spanone]

6. i wrote to both of my repub senators who voted against it...

one never bothered to answer and the other told me he had an A+ rating with the NRA and that he supported the 2nd amendment 100%.

lamar alexander, considered a centrist.....

he didn't give a shit about his constituents or the 20 children shot to death....he works for the NRA and said as much.

[Progressive dog]

8. 13:1 sucks, hopefully it can be narrowed

But you described the gun lobby's grass root supporters perfectly.
"the amplification of loonies online and a handful carrying weapons on street corners and yelling in town hall meetings."

[Robb]

12. The "grass roots" for the NRA are irrelevant.

The big money comes from gun manufacturers.

[Recursion]

21. No, most of the ILA's money comes from individuals' donating when they buy a gun

And it seems strange that a cause 90% of Americans support can only come up with less than $300K.

[Robb]

27. Try again.

Also, if you're tired of people calling you an NRA shill, or whatever it was you were complaining about, you should probably stop attempting to legitimize them by pretending they're some sort of grass roots movement.

You don't have to take my advice on this, of course. I probably have ulterior motives in even giving it.

[sir pball]

53. I dunno, every time I buy something

From any one of a number of retailers online (Cabela's, Midway and Brownell's usually), at checkout they automatically round my total up to an even dollar amount "for the NRA!" and ask if I want to donate even more. It's optional and I *always* uncheck the box - but given the volume of sales these places do, even a few cents per transaction is gonna add up awfully fast.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Somebody is playing fast and loose with the numbers or Blommie is a lair

Probably both are true...

[former9thward]

11. As usual the math does not add up.

Bloomberg's group, Mayors against illegal guns, has received at least $5 million (by just 3 individuals) yet they only show spending $200,000. What are they doing with the money if not spending it?

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000027471&year=2012

[Robb]

13. I'll let you read what you wrote again before I respond.

Close your eyes, think hard...

[former9thward]

33. I presented two facts about one specific group.

Naturally since you have no answer you just post snark. BTW no one cares if you respond....

[elehhhhna]

15. tax-exempt graft receptacle

every pol has at LEAST ONE "charity" now.

[EOTE]

35. You provide a link to what the group has spent in individual years.

But you do not provide a link showing the money that they've received. The math seems to add up, just not the unsourced variable you threw in. And just so you know, a lobbying organization doesn't spend it's entire surplus every year, that would be silly.

[former9thward]

38. There you go.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns was founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. Bloomberg is the largest funder of the group, having contributed $3 million. Eli Broad contributed $750,000 and the Joyce Foundation contributed $1.1 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayors_Against_Illegal_Guns

These are just three contributions. What other contributions they have is unknown since they refuse to disclose. So they spend $200k out of at least $5 million. So your strawman of "its entire surplus every year" is just that -- a strawman. The math does not add up.

[EOTE]

39. Like hell it doesn't.

The group has been around for 7 years. 2013 is only 1/3rd finished and they've already spent a quarter million dollars. Funny how you don't include that in your fuzzy math. It seems to me that their rate is spending is increasing fairly quickly. You seem to think that things don't add up if a group doesn't spend nearly it's entire set of resources in one year. You're confused as to why a group hasn't spent it's entire cache it obtained over numerous years in one year. That's just ignorant. Having a cache of resources is a good thing for ANY lobbying group. What's so hard to understand about that?

[former9thward]

42. So they have only received three contributions in 7 years?

That is what you are saying. How come they won't disclose their budget? The math does not add up despite your attempts. You have given no links, only I have.

[EOTE]

45. Who knows? You sure as hell don't.

Although that's not going to prevent you from pretending that you do.

[former9thward]

47. I have presented specific facts.

You have presented none. You just put up the strawman "They can't spend everything in a year!" The math does not add up.

[EOTE]

48. And your facts mean utterly nothing.

They're meaningless in the context you presented them. Where is your beef with Apple for having many billions of dollars in reserve? It's a stupid and meaningless argument. What if they had the group had 10 million in reserves? 20? 30? What percentage of their reserves are they "supposed" to spend in any given year? Just what are you trying to say, exactly? Or is just implying good enough for you?

[MattBaggins]

18. The opponents of sensible gun safety measures, such as the NRA,

are well funded. They have huge war chests to buy out politicians.

[Chuuku Davis]

19. I absolutely do NOT believe either of those number$

Sorry

[EOTE]

49. And the basis for your belief is?

You're welcome to provide any of your own information. This info is readily available to people who wish to access it.

[aikoaiko]

20. How odd that they aren;t counting the $2MIL bloomie's group spent to win Robin Kelly the seat.

This win was touted as Bloomberg victory over the NRA.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/26/candidate-backed-by-bloomberg-wins-democratic-primary-in-chicago/

[Robb]

23. Is that lobbying?

How odd they also don't count the NRA's direct donations to campaigns, either.

[Recursion]

25. And now you're mixing up the NRA, NRA-ILA, and NRA-PVF

Though obviously the PVF's funding will be very murky because PACs are a complete cesspool of mystery dollars...

[BainsBane]

30. It's all NRA

They break it up for tax purposes, but it's still a huge effort to buy the country for the gun manufacturers, and they've been succeeding for years.

[Robb]

22. A reply to Recursion, who self-deleted: You think the gun lobby sold baked goods?

I feel like I'm talking to either the most credulous or most disingenuous gun enthusiast on the planet.

Gun manufacturers regularly donate in excess of $1 million annually, apiece. That's on top of the $21 million in annual ad sales for its magazine.

Yeah, why the hell can't we just have a car wash or something? Are you fucking kidding me?

[Recursion]

24. A) not letting a self-delete remain deleted is kind of uncool

B) You're still pretending that money is all "from gun manufacturers" rather than "from individuals who donate at the time of sale", which makes me question your honesty on that point (and you're still ignoring the fact that ad sales in American Rifleman don't go to the ILA). The NRA and the actual lobby have to have completely separate fundraising.

C) My point stands: why couldn't the 90% of Americans who are allegedly on your side cough up more than $300k? Hell, on the issue of universal background checks I'm on your side: where was I supposed to give to? Why didn't anybody seem to think this would take money to get done?

[Robb]

26. Tough. It was a dumb thing to say, and you're doubling down anyhow, amazingly.

Had you read any of the links I provided, you'd note

"The NRA and the actual lobby have to have completely separate fundraising."

..is a bunch of baloney. I'll make it easy with a relevant excerpt:

New Pledge Brings Beretta’s Support to over $2 million

FAIRFAX, VA – The National Rifle Association (NRA) announced today that the Beretta Group of companies, led by Beretta U.S.A., Benelli U.S.A., and Burris in the United States have pledged to give the NRA $1 million over the next five years. This gift will benefit the NRA Institute for Legislative Action and the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund’s litigation activities to further expand the scope of Second Amendment protections in the wake of the recent United States Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller.

[EOTE]

36. So you've finally managed to make a gun post that even YOU find abhorrent?

Maybe you can let that teach you something? Maybe try tapping into your conscience a little bit before posting something so insanely naive and cruel?

Perhaps next time you should censor yourself BEFORE making the post?

[TroglodyteScholar]

28. Where should I have sent my check?

I've always had difficulty buying public policy.

[truebluegreen]

31. And yet there is at least one poster here at DU

who complains about the Big Gun Control lobby....

Fuck the NRA.

[G_j]

41. "Big Gun Control". lol

[Savannahmann]

32. Spending was a part of why we lost

The biggest reason was our argument. It was weak, ill conceived, and it was shallow. We had an opportunity, we blew it. Blaming the money means we don't have to change, so the next time our weak argument will fail again, and then we'll blame the same thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022763946

[EOTE]

37. Yeah, having 5% of the budget of the other guys was surely just a minor little point.

Blaming the money means that maybe next time we'll be a little more prepared monetarily. Do you think that the NRA's argument was strong or something? They're utter idiots just like the rest of the gun nuts in this country. When you've got a rabid minority following you and loads of money to throw around, it's not all that difficult to maintain the status quo.

[Savannahmann]

43. Every single day, the NRA and the opponents had a new argument, a new talking point.

We had another victim, and repeated the 90% statistic like it was all the reason we needed. When a question on the Constitutionality of a proposal was put out by the RW, we replied by getting angry. Senator Feinstein got insulted, and pointed out she had been in the Senate a lot longer, but she didn't answer the question. So the RW used our refusal to answer the question in another commercial, another talking point. It made it look like Senator Feinstein knew it was unconstitutional, and was afraid to admit it.

We didn't do the research, we didn't do the homework, and when they hit us with another talking point, we always replied with 90%. When it failed, we screamed shame on you, you went against the 90% like that was all that needed to be said.

We had a shallow single point that we argued. One that lost its effect within a couple days of going out there. We did not study the material, we did not prepare for the debate, and we did not take it seriously. So we lost. Now, to make sure we are blameless, we blame the money. Because if it was the fault of the spending, then we did not lazy our way through it, we were just screwed from the get go.

How much would it have cost to read the Federalist Papers that the RW loves so much? How hard would it have been to quote from there, because there are quotes for and against everything in the damned things. We could have quoted from other famed books, like Democracy in America. But we didn't, we just kept chanting 90% like we were unaware and unconcerned by the objections the Right raised. When those objections were raised here, they were roundly dismissed as RW talking points, ignoring the fact that those RW talking points were being discussed all over the nation.

We could have won, we should have won. We took the lazy path, and we lost.

[EOTE]

44. Appealing to idiots shouldn't be a requirement for congressmen.

And it does us no good in the end run. They don't need to be appeased, they need to be defeated. They've proven time and again that there's just no arguing with the gun nuts. We need money to make our case, and that money is coming. The era of the insane, idiotic gun nut holding political power in this country is coming to an end.

[Savannahmann]

50. Not unless we do the homework.

First, you have to realize. These debates aren't held for the hard core gun nuts. They're held for the twenty percent who swing right and left from time to time. From Reagan, to Clinton, to Bush, to Obama. They swing left and right as the situation, and the events change. McCain was terrible, off topic, and went from ignoring the economy, to over-reacting to it. He looked out of touch, and while we were discussing the economy every day, he was on a single topic, the War in Iraq. That was all that mattered he thought, he was very very wrong. By the time he realized how awful his arguments were, it was too late, they had already lost.

Then 2010, and all we could talk about was how awesome we were. We had passed healthcare, and that was all we talked about. We slipped into the same mistake the Right made in 2006, and 2008. We became a single issue party, with no evolving discussion on even that issue.

We had one poll, that said 90% of the people supported us. While at the same time other polls said that 4% of the population thought this issue was one of the most important. That brings the 90% number into serious question, but we didn't follow it up. We didn't move an inch, we sat right there chanting 90%. The 20% of the people, who aren't Democrats, who aren't Republicans saw this. They got bored with our argument, and decided that the other side had some good points. Points they privately thought we were admitting as true when we did not respond to them.

We were on every single talking head show every time one of them were on, and all we would say is 90% and when the other side made a comment, or asked a question, we would dare them to say it to one of the victims. Occasionally we would get cornered, and have to admit that our proposals would not have prevented Aurora, or Sandy Hook, but then we started chanting 90% again and again.

We had bad proposals, we had weak arguments, and we were making the worst mistake, we had become single argument in our pursuit of an agenda. That's why we lost. We had momentum, and we rested instead of doing the research, and doing the homework to make our arguments constantly evolving while staying on topic.

[EOTE]

51. These debates ARE for the hard core gun nuts.

The rest of sane America is extremely upset on congress's inability to act on gun control legislation. It's not our arguments or proposals that are the problem. It's the NRA and a tiny minority in this country. But again, that won't last for long.

[Savannahmann]

54. Pronouncements like that without due consideration are ill advised.

When 4% of the population thinks that guns are an important issue, it's not because we were outspent, it clearly shows that all that spending by the NRA was essentially wasted too. Look at it this way. After how many press outings, press briefings, and town halls were we able to convince people that this was an important issue? We weren't. They said yeah, whatever when asked in a poll. We took the yeah, and ignored the whatever. By the same token, all the money for commercials, and billboards, was not able to convince most of the population that protecting the 2nd Amendment was an important issue. Do you know what the most important issue was? The economy. Not immigration, not guns, not Abortion.

So by deciding that 96% of the nation, those who don't think that guns are the most important issue, are insane, where does that leave us? We can convince them, but not by shouting shame on you. We can convince them, but not by screaming 90%. We have to do the homework. We have to be able to talk about Miller Vs. United Sates in which limits on the types of guns people possessed was upheld by the court. We have to be able to talk public safety, and crime statistics in nations which have gun control. We did NONE of that, we screamed 90% and we paraded the victims and dared anyone who questioned us to say that to one of the victims families.

So what do you suggest? Taking revenge at the ballot box. Yet the Rethugs who opposed it are about as safe in their seats as you can get. Saxby Chambliss is retiring, right now, I think that Jack Kingston is going to win the seat. Jack Kingston is even further right than Chambliss, but he is in most probability, going to be the Senator from Georgia. Who are we going to put up against him? We got nobody. Nobody who could get elected. If we did get a Democrat elected, it would be someone like Zell Miller, who is even more RW than Kingston. Do you think Kingston is going to bow down to the 90% polling?

So who are we going after? The most RW are the ones with the safest seats. Jesus, we're running against a man who lied, who illegally used taxpayer money, and who was having an affair, and we're barely polling dead even in South Carolina. Even if we win the seat, the Rethugs will get it back at the next regular election. It is a Republican +10 district. Ms. Colbert won't even have the seat for two years. Not unless she votes even further right than Paul Ryan.

You seriously need to think about these things, because the only way to get the Rethugs in line is to get people to think this issue matters. The only way to do that is to know the information, forward and backward, and to decimate them on TV. Not just shout 90% and shame on you. I'm talking about being able to debate the issue, and score points. We'll cheer when the shout 90% and shame on you. But we're going to vote Democratic anyway. The 20% we're trying to convince won't. Especially if all we have is such shallow arguments as to why we should do these things.

[EOTE]

55. You seem to be willingly twisting my words.

I'm not even coming close to suggesting I think 90+% of the country is insane. I'm talking about the gun nuts. I'm not talking about people who don't think guns are the most pressing issue now, I don't either. I'm talking about maybe 8% of the country and at the moment, they're the squeaky wheels getting the most grease. The majority of this country wants sensible gun legislation. It's that tiny minority who prevent that from happening. Those are the insane ones. And there is no reasoning with them, so it's pointless to try. It has been tried many times in the past. So, they need to be excluded from the conversation. Considering their increasing irrelevance, it's going to happen relatively soon.

[G_j]

40. K&R

[Pelican]

46. I think it's amazing that it was so little on either side...

[Kingofalldems]

56. 13-1 isn't little.

[Pelican]

58. Please note the difference between actual amount spent vs. ratio...

$3.8 million barely buys you a 30 minute sitcom nowadays....

Double points for the gun control lobby who has money, see Mayors against Guns etc.. and either didn't spend it or spent it on something that is as yet unknown.

[Kingofalldems]

59. So you would be against gun control?

And seem to claim the pro gun control side has as much money as the NRA.

[Pelican]

60. I seem to claim...

... that they had access to significantly more money than was referenced in this article.

If gun control was their goal, the last few months seems like the time to have have used those resources, if they wanted to enact change on a national level.

Gun control has devolved to the states at this point...

[jonthebru]

52. Cute little girl.

I could give a shit about this issue as it is being fought, as important as it is.

movetoamend.org

anticorruptionact.org

We have the best/worst government money can buy.
And will have to live with it until people decide differently.

[Maineman]

57. The question for legislators is, How much (money) would it take to get you to vote

for gun safety legislation?

Might as well just get the game out in the open.

[CarmanK]

61. They won the Congress vote, but not the argument or the people's sentiments.