ShareThis Page

Politicians & guns: Follow votes, not money

| Wednesday, Oct. 18, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox helps introduce President Donald J. Trump at the National Rifle Association Leadership Forum last April in Atlanta.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox helps introduce President Donald J. Trump at the National Rifle Association Leadership Forum last April in Atlanta.

An old rule of thumb holds that when someone says it's not about the money, it's really about the money.

But there are exceptions to almost every rule. The National Rifle Association is a case in point.

In the wake of the horror in Las Vegas, countless politicians, journalists and commentators are insisting that the NRA has a “stranglehold” on the Republican Party. Hillary Clinton claimed that the GOP-controlled Congress simply does “whatever they are told to do” by the NRA and the gun lobby.

The Washington Post and The New York Times laid out splashy reports chronicling how much money the NRA has given to Republican congressmen. Op-ed pages have been suffused with claims that the NRA has bought Republicans with blood money, stifling the popular will and thwarting democracy in the process.

There's just one problem: It's not true.

Oh, it's certainly the case that the NRA and related groups have given a good amount of money to Republican politicians (and quite a few Democrats) over the years. But in the grubby bazaar of politician-buying, the NRA is a bit player.

The Washington Post in 2016 reported that since 1998, the NRA had donated more than $3.5 million to current members of Congress. According to Opensecrets.org , the legal profession contributed $207 million to politicians in 2016 alone.

In terms of lobbying and political contributions, the NRA and the gun industry generally spend next to nothing compared with the big players. OpenSecrets reports the NRA spent $1.1 million on contributions in 2016 and $3 million on lobbying. The food and beverage industry has spent $14 million on lobbying in 2017 alone. Alphabet, Google's parent company, spent $9 million on contributions in 2016.

In fairness, NRA-related outside PACs do bundle a good deal more cash, but it's still a fraction of what Big Labor and trial lawyers pony up. All NRA-related outside expenditures in 2016 added up to about $54 million. A single liberal super PAC, Priorities USA, spent $133 million.

But some people can't let go of the idea that opposition to gun control is bought and paid for.

Part of the problem, I think, is that people who hate guns and gun rights cannot believe that people disagree with them in good faith. There must be evil motives, chiefly greed, that explain everything.

The simple reality is that the NRA doesn't need to spend a lot of money convincing politicians to protect gun rights. All it needs to do is spend a little money clarifying that a great many of those politicians' constituents care deeply about gun rights.

If you don't know anyone who has a gun, you live in a bubble. Four out of 10 Americans have a gun in their households, according to a Pew Research Center survey.

This is why gun control is a great issue for Democrat fundraising but an even better issue for Republican get-out-the-vote efforts. Politicians understand that.

Politicians' priority is winning elections. Money-grubbing is a means to that end. And so is vote-grubbing. Maybe some politicians secretly favor stricter controls on guns. But what keeps them from pursuing such restrictions isn't cash from the NRA; it's votes from their constituents.

In other words, don't follow the money, follow the votes.

Jonah Goldberg is an editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.