NEW YORK TIMES July 24, 2000
Groups Copying N.R.A. Methods for the Election
By JAMES DAO
WASHINGTON, July 21 -- After many years of being outspent and outmuscled by the National Rifle Association, the gun control movement has begun the most ambitious campaign in its history to raise money, recruit foot soldiers and build public support for stronger gun laws in preparation for this fall's national elections.
From established groups like Handgun Control Inc., to fledgling ones like the Million Mom March, more gun control organizations than ever before are doing the kinds of grass-roots organizing that has made the N.R.A. so powerful: opening offices across the nation, training volunteers, devising media campaigns and building political war chests.
At the same time, wealthy proponents of gun control seem more willing to contribute to the cause. Several major philanthropists, including George Soros, have given millions of dollars over the last two years to groups that are providing intellectual and strategic support to the organizations and politicians who advocate more regulation of guns.
And in just the last few weeks, a handful of anonymous donors have given more than $2 million to two new groups that will use the money to help candidates who support gun control and attack those who do not.
Though the gun control groups will probably still be outspent by the N.R.A. by at least two to one, their voices in this election are likely to be louder than ever before, through television commercials, mailings and news conferences.
"It's not lonely out there anymore," said Joe Sudbay, political director of Handgun Control, which for years was the only gun control group active in elections. "There is a burgeoning sense that the elections are all-important this year."
Fueling this burst of organizing is a newfound confidence among gun control leaders that public support for regulating firearms is as high as it has ever been. Outrage over mass shootings combined with enthusiasm about the Million Mom March in May have helped change the political climate, they say. And the N.R.A. has lost clout, they contend, as evidenced by the defeat of a referendum last year in Missouri to allow people to carry concealed weapons.
"In the 22 years I've been working on this issue, I have never seen the climate as favorable" for gun control, said Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster who works with Handgun Control.
Mr. Hart cites polls showing that the electorate's support for gun control -- always high -- is now also more intense, meaning more voters are making it a top priority. "Education is 1, the economy No. 2," he said. "But then, ahead of foreign policy and ahead of abortion, right there with moral issues and taxes, is gun control."
Still, even the most optimistic of the gun control leaders acknowledge that they cannot match the resources of the battle-hardened N.R.A., whose leaders have promised to spend $15 million on state and federal elections this year, nearly twice as much as in 1996. The group has already raised $8 million this year and has more than $5 million on hand.
Moreover, with its 3.8 million members, three magazines, vast e-mail contact list and national network of affiliated groups, the N.R.A. is bigger, more experienced and better equipped to mobilize its core supporters than the gun control forces.
"Our membership is larger," said James J. Baker, executive director of the N.R.A. political wing, the Institute for Legislative Action. "And our reach extends well beyond our members."
"This is a very important election," Mr. Baker said, "maybe the most important general election in the 20 years I've been here -- for both sides."
Both camps say the sharp differences between the major presidential candidates this year are helping to energize supporters. Vice President Al Gore has called for an array of new restrictions, including licensing new handgun buyers and banning certain inexpensive handguns. Gov. George W. Bush of Texas has generally sided with the N.R.A., signing bills allowing people to carry concealed weapons and preventing municipalities from suing gun makers.
Much as the N.R.A. has tried to demonize Mr. Gore in its fund-raising efforts as a threat to Second Amendment rights, Handgun Control has sought to cast Mr. Bush as a pawn of the N.R.A. who would team up with a Congress controlled by Republicans to rescind every major gun law on the books.
In a recent fund-raising letter, Sarah Brady, chairwoman of Handgun Control, wrote: "My friend, if you and I truly want a safer America, we cannot allow George W. Bush to be elected president of the United States. A political disaster of that magnitude would mean four long years of being on the defensive."
Such appeals seem to be working. Handgun Control has raised more than $1.2 million in the last year, three times what it spent in the 1996 campaign. The group intends to spend at least $4 million this year, focusing on about 20 closely contested Congressional races where gun control is an issue. In most cases, it will be supporting Democrats, said Mr. Sudbay, the political director.
Among the Republicans Handgun Control is likely to work against are Representative James E. Rogan of California and Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri. The group has also run advertisements in several cities criticizing Mr. Bush's record on gun control, and plans to buy more air time in closely contested states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Missouri.
"In swing areas, our mission is to make sure voters, particularly women voters, understand the Bush record," Mr. Sudbay said.
In past campaigns, Handgun Control largely stood alone in the fight against the N.R.A. But this year, it has been joined by at least two new advocates. One is the Million Mom March, the nonprofit group behind the Mother's Day rally in Washington. The group recently created a political arm that has raised $1 million from a single anonymous donor.
The second new group, the Campaign for a Progressive Future, has raised more than $1 million, also from anonymous donors, to spend on campaigns this year, said Steve Cobble, one of its founders.
Both groups organized their fund-raising committees under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, which has allowed them to hide the identities of their donors. But Congress recently enacted rules that will require the groups to disclose the names of future contributors.
The Million Mom March has opened more than 240 chapters in 46 states and expects to be represented in every state by the fall. Those chapters will be able to lobby state legislatures, train volunteers for campaigns and disseminate "voters' guides" evaluating candidates.
Modeling itself after Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Million Mom March will try to help its allies, and hurt its opponents, by staging emotional rallies featuring victims of gun violence or their survivors. The group plans to endorse a presidential candidate -- almost certainly Mr. Gore -- and will get involved in state and Congressional races.
"Our goal is always to get people who have personal experiences involved in trying to change policy, because they are the most powerful forces," said Andrew McGuire, executive director of the Million Mom March and a former MADD director.
Mr. Cobble, a former adviser to the Rev. Jesse Jackson, said his group would focus on a small number of closely contested Congressional races with stark differences between the candidates on gun issues.
A fourth group, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, is considering creation of a political action committee. But at the very least, the group plans to hire political organizers to help mobilize pro-gun-control voters in 10 to 15 tight Congressional races, said Mark Pertschuk, the group's legislative director.
Mr. Soros, the billionaire financier, has led recent efforts by philanthropists to support nonprofit groups pushing for tighter gun laws. Although many of those groups are not overtly involved in politics, they are providing the intellectual groundwork for the political advocates.
For instance, the Funders' Collaborative for Gun Violence Prevention, a year-old group created with matching $5 million donations from Mr. Soros and the Irene Diamond Fund, has helped finance litigation against gun manufacturers and a study of gun-related injuries by the Harvard School of Public Health.
Rebecca Peters, program director for the Funders' Collaborative, said one of her main goals was to overcome what she considered the mistaken but widespread perception that there were already many tough gun laws on the books.
"Policy makers and the public believe that the law is much stricter than it is," Ms. Peters said. "We are funding information which will allow people and policy makers to understand how sparsely regulated this product and this industry are."
Groups Copying N.R.A. Methods for the Election
By JAMES DAO
WASHINGTON, July 21 -- After many years of being outspent and outmuscled by the National Rifle Association, the gun control movement has begun the most ambitious campaign in its history to raise money, recruit foot soldiers and build public support for stronger gun laws in preparation for this fall's national elections.
From established groups like Handgun Control Inc., to fledgling ones like the Million Mom March, more gun control organizations than ever before are doing the kinds of grass-roots organizing that has made the N.R.A. so powerful: opening offices across the nation, training volunteers, devising media campaigns and building political war chests.
At the same time, wealthy proponents of gun control seem more willing to contribute to the cause. Several major philanthropists, including George Soros, have given millions of dollars over the last two years to groups that are providing intellectual and strategic support to the organizations and politicians who advocate more regulation of guns.
And in just the last few weeks, a handful of anonymous donors have given more than $2 million to two new groups that will use the money to help candidates who support gun control and attack those who do not.
Though the gun control groups will probably still be outspent by the N.R.A. by at least two to one, their voices in this election are likely to be louder than ever before, through television commercials, mailings and news conferences.
"It's not lonely out there anymore," said Joe Sudbay, political director of Handgun Control, which for years was the only gun control group active in elections. "There is a burgeoning sense that the elections are all-important this year."
Fueling this burst of organizing is a newfound confidence among gun control leaders that public support for regulating firearms is as high as it has ever been. Outrage over mass shootings combined with enthusiasm about the Million Mom March in May have helped change the political climate, they say. And the N.R.A. has lost clout, they contend, as evidenced by the defeat of a referendum last year in Missouri to allow people to carry concealed weapons.
"In the 22 years I've been working on this issue, I have never seen the climate as favorable" for gun control, said Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster who works with Handgun Control.
Mr. Hart cites polls showing that the electorate's support for gun control -- always high -- is now also more intense, meaning more voters are making it a top priority. "Education is 1, the economy No. 2," he said. "But then, ahead of foreign policy and ahead of abortion, right there with moral issues and taxes, is gun control."
Still, even the most optimistic of the gun control leaders acknowledge that they cannot match the resources of the battle-hardened N.R.A., whose leaders have promised to spend $15 million on state and federal elections this year, nearly twice as much as in 1996. The group has already raised $8 million this year and has more than $5 million on hand.
Moreover, with its 3.8 million members, three magazines, vast e-mail contact list and national network of affiliated groups, the N.R.A. is bigger, more experienced and better equipped to mobilize its core supporters than the gun control forces.
"Our membership is larger," said James J. Baker, executive director of the N.R.A. political wing, the Institute for Legislative Action. "And our reach extends well beyond our members."
"This is a very important election," Mr. Baker said, "maybe the most important general election in the 20 years I've been here -- for both sides."
Both camps say the sharp differences between the major presidential candidates this year are helping to energize supporters. Vice President Al Gore has called for an array of new restrictions, including licensing new handgun buyers and banning certain inexpensive handguns. Gov. George W. Bush of Texas has generally sided with the N.R.A., signing bills allowing people to carry concealed weapons and preventing municipalities from suing gun makers.
Much as the N.R.A. has tried to demonize Mr. Gore in its fund-raising efforts as a threat to Second Amendment rights, Handgun Control has sought to cast Mr. Bush as a pawn of the N.R.A. who would team up with a Congress controlled by Republicans to rescind every major gun law on the books.
In a recent fund-raising letter, Sarah Brady, chairwoman of Handgun Control, wrote: "My friend, if you and I truly want a safer America, we cannot allow George W. Bush to be elected president of the United States. A political disaster of that magnitude would mean four long years of being on the defensive."
Such appeals seem to be working. Handgun Control has raised more than $1.2 million in the last year, three times what it spent in the 1996 campaign. The group intends to spend at least $4 million this year, focusing on about 20 closely contested Congressional races where gun control is an issue. In most cases, it will be supporting Democrats, said Mr. Sudbay, the political director.
Among the Republicans Handgun Control is likely to work against are Representative James E. Rogan of California and Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri. The group has also run advertisements in several cities criticizing Mr. Bush's record on gun control, and plans to buy more air time in closely contested states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Missouri.
"In swing areas, our mission is to make sure voters, particularly women voters, understand the Bush record," Mr. Sudbay said.
In past campaigns, Handgun Control largely stood alone in the fight against the N.R.A. But this year, it has been joined by at least two new advocates. One is the Million Mom March, the nonprofit group behind the Mother's Day rally in Washington. The group recently created a political arm that has raised $1 million from a single anonymous donor.
The second new group, the Campaign for a Progressive Future, has raised more than $1 million, also from anonymous donors, to spend on campaigns this year, said Steve Cobble, one of its founders.
Both groups organized their fund-raising committees under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, which has allowed them to hide the identities of their donors. But Congress recently enacted rules that will require the groups to disclose the names of future contributors.
The Million Mom March has opened more than 240 chapters in 46 states and expects to be represented in every state by the fall. Those chapters will be able to lobby state legislatures, train volunteers for campaigns and disseminate "voters' guides" evaluating candidates.
Modeling itself after Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Million Mom March will try to help its allies, and hurt its opponents, by staging emotional rallies featuring victims of gun violence or their survivors. The group plans to endorse a presidential candidate -- almost certainly Mr. Gore -- and will get involved in state and Congressional races.
"Our goal is always to get people who have personal experiences involved in trying to change policy, because they are the most powerful forces," said Andrew McGuire, executive director of the Million Mom March and a former MADD director.
Mr. Cobble, a former adviser to the Rev. Jesse Jackson, said his group would focus on a small number of closely contested Congressional races with stark differences between the candidates on gun issues.
A fourth group, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, is considering creation of a political action committee. But at the very least, the group plans to hire political organizers to help mobilize pro-gun-control voters in 10 to 15 tight Congressional races, said Mark Pertschuk, the group's legislative director.
Mr. Soros, the billionaire financier, has led recent efforts by philanthropists to support nonprofit groups pushing for tighter gun laws. Although many of those groups are not overtly involved in politics, they are providing the intellectual groundwork for the political advocates.
For instance, the Funders' Collaborative for Gun Violence Prevention, a year-old group created with matching $5 million donations from Mr. Soros and the Irene Diamond Fund, has helped finance litigation against gun manufacturers and a study of gun-related injuries by the Harvard School of Public Health.
Rebecca Peters, program director for the Funders' Collaborative, said one of her main goals was to overcome what she considered the mistaken but widespread perception that there were already many tough gun laws on the books.
"Policy makers and the public believe that the law is much stricter than it is," Ms. Peters said. "We are funding information which will allow people and policy makers to understand how sparsely regulated this product and this industry are."