Spending on Gun Legislation Doesn't Match Rhetoric

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Open Secrets does a nice job of evaluating the spending on gun legislation since Sandy Hook for both gun rights and gun control groups. The big shocker; gun rights groups have not spent that much more.

The bigger shocker, despite Bloomberg's claims of spending millions to support gun control, his actual reported expenses are very modest.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/04/gun-lobby-spending.html

 

[zoomie]

Part of me thinks they know it's a waste as long as the House is a near-certain deadend. I suspect we'd $ee a lot more $pent if they actually believed their efforts had a chance. If the House falls, we'll be in trouble.

 

[22-rimfire]

From rhe referenced article...

On the other side of the issue, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a pro-gun control group bankrolled, in part, by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, doubled its lobbying expenses between the end of 2012, when it spent just $50,000, and the first three months of this year when it spent $100,000.

I think Bloomberg has realized that spending a lot of money does not necessarily translate to more support. Bloomberg gets tremendous exposure for his 100K. He claims high American support for much more stringent gun laws, but our representatives seem to see a different picture. Bloomberg and other folks like our President, Vice President, and Sen. Feinstein then talk (and blame) about the rich gun lobby. Bloomberg capitalizes on "free media" advertising through the more supportive TV networks like CNN, NBC, and to a lesser degree Fox News. He gets his air time. Politics seems to be a blame game, not a solution game.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It is worth noting that at the same time Bloomberg reported $100k of lobbying expense; he was telling the press he spent $12 million.