NRA and Anti Fund Raising Post-Parkland

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The NRA-PVF just received more money in a single month than any federal records show. They raised $2.4 million, with $1.9 million coming from small donors. This blows away even the post-Newtown fundraising.

In the meantime, the Parkland antis have raised an impressive $3.5 million (although at least a million of that is from two single donors) since February 18. However, anti-gun politicians have only received about $15,000 in donations. The money appears to have been used instead to “organize marches and help victims.” Everytown and Gifford’s group combined raised less than $150,000 over the same period.

So, essentially, gun control groups outraised us but spent it spinning up a new organization that used the money on marching instead of electing people to support them.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article209619234.html

On the other hand, you can argue the $3.5 million to create an atmosphere of moral panic did more to push gun control than the past 10 years of election efforts, so maybe they are on to something.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

On the other hand, you can argue the $3.5 million to create an atmosphere of moral panic did more to push gun control than the past 10 years of election efforts, so maybe they are on to something.

I hope whatever they're on is hallucinogenic and that it wears off soon.

 

[BarryLee]

The general public often is motivated by short 3-minute sound bites or more so now by 140-character tweets. They spend very little time focusing on the facts and more time responding emotionally. So, the strategy of ginning up emotion and ignoring the facts may be a good one.

Elected officials spend some time researching various issues and considering the actual facts. However, the scary part is even though politician realizes what the facts show they often support more gun control because they want to get reelected. We need to be aggressive in our feedback to our political leaders. This includes actual communication (call, letters, email) and financial donations to them and the NRA.

Also, corporate leaders may actually consider the facts surrounding a specific issue, but still side with the emotional masses because of financial concerns. This is a much trickier issue because they generally consider losing our business before they make a decision and determine that it is an acceptable outcome.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Elected officials spend some time researching various issues and considering the actual facts. However, the scary part is even though politician realizes what the facts show they often support more gun control because they want to get reelected. We need to be aggressive in our feedback to our political leaders. This includes actual communication (call, letters, email) and financial donations to them and the NRA.

There was a video on Youtube awhile back that showed this in action. It's probably still there, but I can't find it again. I sawe it probably two years ago. It was a city council meeting -- somewhere -- debating a local anti-gun ordinance. A member of the audience had the audacity to stand up and remind the councilmen (and women) that their state had firearms preemption, so if they enacted the ordinance it couldn't be enforced.

And one councilman then stated very passionately that he didn't care if the ordinance could be enforced, he was going to vote for it anyway "because we have to do something."

 

[SamNavy]

We've known this for years. The anti's are funded almost exclusively from a very small circle of the very rich.

$2million came from 4 rich hollywood donors, and Bloomberg ponied the rest. All $3.5million came from just 5 people.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...rch-parkland-students-donate-500-k/354372002/

 

[natman]

There was a video on Youtube awhile back that showed this in action. It's probably still there, but I can't find it again. I sawe it probably two years ago. It was a city council meeting -- somewhere -- debating a local anti-gun ordinance. A member of the audience had the audacity to stand up and remind the councilmen (and women) that their state had firearms preemption, so if they enacted the ordinance it couldn't be enforced.

And one councilman then stated very passionately that he didn't care if the ordinance could be enforced, he was going to vote for it anyway "because we have to do something."

In 2005 San Francisco put a proposition (Prop H) on the ballot to ban handguns. They KNEW it wouldn't stand up because it conflicted with state preemption laws. A nearly identical proposition had been previously overturned on exactly those grounds. After it passed, the NRA took it to court, just like everyone knew they would. The NRA won on state premption grounds, just like everyone knew they would. Then SF had the amazingly poor judgement to appeal it. And lost, just like everyone knew they would.

San Francisco squandered nearly a million taxpayer dollars, including $380,000 to the NRA for legal costs, on a proposition everyone knew would be overturned.

But at least they "made a statement".

 

[riffraff]

Good info.

I like that online there is an easy opportunity to make a little donation every time you order ammo - hopefully most of us at least throw 10 bucks when we spend 200+..

One thing we have going for us as a group is we are used to spending $$ on our hobby and there are businesses riding on the ability to sell their product. Hard to keep up when folks drop 1 million at a time in donations but the gun industry is an actual commercial industry, where as the anti gun industry is purely lobbying with nobody standing to make any $$ off their success.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

San Francisco squandered nearly a million taxpayer dollars, including $380,000 to the NRA for legal costs, on a proposition everyone knew would be overturned.

More like San Francisco paid $1 million of taxpayer money to friendly law firms for unnecessary legal work in the expectation some of that taxpayer money would be kicked back as future campaign donations to the city officials throwing work their way. And of course, they simultaneously funded the NRA to the tune of $380,000. Just goes to show that a politician may take your side because it is easier to get his hand in your pocket that way.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

$2million came from 4 rich hollywood donors, and Bloomberg ponied the rest. All $3.5million came from just 5 people.

If Bloomberg did pony up the remainder, then he just spent $1.5 million to raise less than $14,000 for his organization and $2.4 million for the NRA. A few more wins like that and he’ll really have the NRA on the ropes!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

So, essentially, gun control groups outraised us but spent it spinning up a new organization that used the money on marching instead of electing people to support them.

Like the NRA is spending money on Yeti publicity control, mass mailings over and over again, etc. instead of marching. Oh wait, the NRA doesn't march.

I know you are trying to put a positive spin on the fact that the opposition raised more money, but it isn't like the only thing the NRA is spending money on is gun control issues. It takes a lot LESS money to run a small organization than the behemoth that is the NRA.

We've known this for years. The anti's are funded almost exclusively from a very small circle of the very rich.

And yet those few antis seem to have a near endless supply of money.

If Bloomberg did pony up the remainder, then he just spent $1.5 million to raise less than $14,000 for his organization and $2.4 million for the NRA. A few more wins like that and he’ll really have the NRA on the ropes!

If that is what makes you feel good is by noting the opposition isn't terribly efficient, by all means don't look closely at the NRA and where all their money goes. It really almost sounds like you are trying to count your chickens before they hatch, that victory is assured, but right now the NRA is really fighting a huge publicity battle for credibility of our 2nd Amendment rights. The NRA spent a lot of time, money, etc. just trying to deal with the Brady organization. That small, startups can so easily battle the NRA and garner so much negative 2nd Amendment publicity for which the NRA has to do damage control should tell you that even if the NRA managed to raise slightly more money (instead of less) than these anti groups, it still isn't enough. The NRA needs to be doing many more times the amount of fundraising, not just being competitive, because these smaller groups are able to do a lot more damage with their money than the NRA is able to do in repairs or gains with the public.

A question that needs to be asked is why the antis have many million $ donors during the last period and the NRA doesn't.

One of the biggest problems I see with this is a matter of perspective. The NRA is all about the NRA. To support the fight against gun control one needs to support the NRA. That is something of a party line. Here, fighting gun control seems to take a back seat to supporting the NRA. Whereas the anti groups aren't so much about themselves as they are a topic - guns are bad, we need gun control. People find it much easier to join a fight they believe in than to join an organization. Such grass roots endeavors can garner a lot of power very quickly, which we have seen. They may not have the staying power of an organization like the NRA, but they can do a LOT of damage before they start to fade.

 

[ATN082268]

And yet those few antis seem to have a near endless supply of money.

I'm not sure whether the anti-gun side has more private money dedicated to the cause or not but, in any case, the scale seems deeply weighted against the pro-2nd Amendment side with the government, courts, media, Hollywood and education establishments generally being anti-gun.

Whereas the anti groups aren't so much about themselves as they are a topic - guns are bad, we need gun control. People find it much easier to join a fight they believe in than to join an organization. Such grass roots endeavors can garner a lot of power very quickly, which we have seen. They may not have the staying power of an organization like the NRA, but they can do a LOT of damage before they start to fade.

The mantra of guns are bad, we need gun control probably does appeal to people more than boring stuff like supporting freedom. Plus the damage anti-gun groups do by helping pass gun control laws, generally sticks around forever (death by a thousand cuts).

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It is nice that the NRA raised money. The issue is whether they use it on PR and legislative strategy and tactics that are better than their recent set of messaging.

If the money is not used to actually move public opinion (not just rile up the choir) and or push proactive legislation that counts, they could be sitting on Scrooge McDuck's fortune for all I care.

Show me the results and not 'show me the money'.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

While the NRA leadership certainly has problems, that leadership is reflective of a membership that wants the NRA to solve all their problems for them for $30/month and occasionally sending a letter to their congressperson.

The NRA is not going to be any more effective than its members are. If its members sit around and wait for the NRA to tell them they have a problem and they need to be active, those members are not going to be happy with the results that gets.

At the end of the day, individual members who engage and get active in their local communities are the ones who make the difference. If you are waiting on NRA leadership to come up with new solutions, you may be waiting awhile. NRA is much better off reinforcing the schwerpunkt as it develops through the efforts of individual members than it is a brilliant planning.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well, since I know some of their research folks, I have expressed my view on messaging. I do think leadership has responsibility for better planning. I've worked with the local folks and they get more bang for the buck so to speak.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The mantra of guns are bad, we need gun control probably does appeal to people more than boring stuff like supporting freedom.

That's just it, the dichotomy isn't between "guns are bad" and "support freedom." The dichotomy is "guns are bad" and "support the NRA" who supports freedom.

The NRA is not going to be any more effective than its members are. If its members sit around and wait for the NRA to tell them they have a problem and they need to be active, those members are not going to be happy with the results that gets.

It is a problem, but part of the program of the NRA is that we need to give money to the NRA so that they will fight for our rights.

The antis managed to put on demonstrations around the countries and march thousands of people into the mall in DC. When have we marched 1000s of people anywhere in order to stand up for gun rights?

No doubt we have certain reservations about trying to do so because we will get some of the really weird extremists showing up who feel the need to open carry in very unflattering ways.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I personally think spending $3.5 million on a march is a pretty poor use of money. For one, a march covered by a friendly media vs. the same march covered by a hostile media can have wildly different results. Around 50,000 people marched on DC on January 19. Can you name the cause without googling?

Marches don’t change things on their own. Unless they bring in new people AND get those people voting on the issue, no change happens. Is a pro-gun march going to do that? Or is it just going to bring out people who are already active?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The antis managed to put on demonstrations around the countries and march thousands of people into the mall in DC. When have we marched 1000s of people anywhere in order to stand up for gun rights?

Two Saturdays ago. There were pro-gun rallies at many state capitols. I attended the one for my state. I went with a fellow NRA instructor. We both estimated around 2,000 people -- he thought a bit over 2K, I thought a tad under.

Multiply that by 50 states and it works out to a somewhat serious number. Of course, I don't know that there were rallies in all fifty states, or how many people showed up for whatever other rallies there were.

 

[mack59]

Illinois rally today - annual IGOLD at state capital - a march with a rally and lobbying.

It takes a synergy of forces to try to effectively fight gun control advocates - local, state, and national. Rapid response to call and write/email legislators, to get on social media and reach out to friends and family, money for lawsuits and messaging and to pay lobbyists and lawyers and to donate to politicians, programs to grow the base, taking people shooting and introducing them safely and responsibly to firearms, pushing pro-second amendment legislation, playing offense not just defense. It requires a good short game as well as a good long game.

The antis long game is make gun ownership taboo socially, make guns less accessible, ban as many as possible, make guns and ammo more and more expensive. Their short game is to use every tragedy to emotionally inflame people, social media, society, and media to push to "do something." And to try to cement those short term swings into long term gains.

It's a war and it never stops - we have to stay active and work locally, statewide, and nationally.

There was a saying that if the politics of gun rights and gun control were rivers then gun rights would be deep and quite wide. Gun control would be shallow but a mile wide. Meaning gun rights almost always runs deep and steady but gun control quickly floods but contracts as the deep commitment isn't there.

There have been two huge changes in the debate - the spread of carry laws has given firearms a practical and daily use reality to urban residents that they did not have before. The other is Micheal Bloomberg one of the richest men in the world (billions not millions) who has through his virtually unlimited wealth financed and built and rebuilt the gun control movement - hiring organizers and PR experts, creating and funding organizations, and moving behind the scenes to buy political support and to pressure businesses to cut off support for gun businesses and organizations. He and those he employs have turned one political party into a party now committed to gun control where they were once ambivalent or scared or cautious. He has paid "research institutes" to churn out gun control studies, and he has started training seminars and groups to help train reporters to report on gun violence and gun control with the "proper" background and context.

 

[Tom Servo]

I personally think spending $3.5 million on a march is a pretty poor use of money

Not for them. It got them running on the prime-time media circuit. It got their agenda before the public. While they didn't donate much in terms of money to politicians, look at the number of said politicians now aping their talking points verbatim.

More to the point, we simply don't have any idea just how much money they've got. Donations are laundered through umbrella groups like the Joyce Foundation and Tides Foundation, often with donors having no idea.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, it worked for them because they have friendly media. Also, the effects were temporal... in a week or two, the support they had began to fade.

250,000 gun owners gathering to march might engender more fear than support, especially after a hostile media reported on it. And since it has a limited time effect, it would have to be used to push specific legislation.