{"id":153,"date":"2018-02-24T19:07:38","date_gmt":"2018-02-25T00:07:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.gopplaybook.com\/?p=153"},"modified":"2018-03-01T13:52:10","modified_gmt":"2018-03-01T18:52:10","slug":"the-true-source-of-the-n-r-a-s-clout-mobilization-not-donations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.gopplaybook.com\/?p=153","title":{"rendered":"The True Source of the N.R.A.\u2019s Clout: Mobilization, Not Donations"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

The True Source of the N.R.A.\u2019s Clout: Mobilization, Not Donations<\/h1>\n
\n

By\u00a0ERIC LIPTON<\/span><\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<\/span>ALEXANDER BURNS<\/span><\/a><\/span>

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/header>\n
\n
\n
Photo<\/span><\/p>\n
\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>
A gun store in Florida. The N.R.A. has advanced a broad agenda in the state, including making it easier to carry concealed weapons.<\/span>\u00a0Credit<\/span>Lynne Sladky\/Associated Press<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

WASHINGTON \u2014 Few places have seen the National Rifle Association wield its might more effectively than Florida, where it has advanced a\u00a0sweeping agenda<\/a>\u00a0that has made it easier to carry concealed weapons, given gun owners greater leeway to shoot in self-defense and even briefly\u00a0barred doctors<\/a>\u00a0from asking patients about their firearms.<\/p>\n

To many of its opponents, that decades-long string of victories is proof that the N.R.A. has bought its political support. But the numbers tell a more complicated story: The organization\u2019s political action committee over the last decade\u00a0has not made a single direct contribution<\/a>\u00a0to any current member of the Florida House or Senate, according to campaign finance records.<\/p>\n

In Florida and other states across the country, as well as on Capitol Hill, the N.R.A. derives its political influence instead from a muscular electioneering machine, fueled by tens of millions of dollars\u2019 worth of campaign ads and voter-guide mailings, that scrutinizes candidates for their views on guns and propels members to the polls.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s really not the contributions,\u201d said Cleta Mitchell, a former N.R.A. board member. \u201cIt\u2019s the ability of the N.R.A. to tell its members: Here\u2019s who\u2019s good on the Second Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Far more than any check the N.R.A. could write, it is this mobilization operation that has made the organization such a challenging adversary for Democrats and gun control advocates \u2014 one that, after the massacre at a school in Parkland, Fla., is struggling to confront\u00a0an emotional student-led push for new restrictions<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The N.R.A.\u2019s impact comes, in large part, from the simplicity of the incentives it presents to political candidates: letter grades, based on their record on the Second Amendment, that guide the N.R.A.\u2019s involvement in elections. Lawmakers who earn an \u201cA\u201d rating can count on the group not to oppose them when they run for re-election or higher office.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

For candidates who earn lower grades, the group deploys a range of blunt-force methods against them. The N.R.A. mails the voter guides to its five million members, displaying images of favored candidates on the front, and some state chapters bombard supporters with emails about coming elections.<\/p>\n

The organization\u2019s calculation is that its money is better spent on maintaining a motivated base of gun rights supporters than on bankrolling candidates directly.<\/p>\n

\u201cEveryone wants a simplistic answer, which is they buy votes,\u201d said\u00a0Harry L. Wilson<\/a>, a political scientist at Roanoke College and the author of \u201cGuns, Gun Control, and Elections.\u201d \u201cBut it is largely incorrect. The N.R.A.\u2019s power is more complex than people think.\u201d<\/p>\n

Compared with the towering sums of money donated to House and Senate candidates in the last cycle \u2014\u00a0$1.7 billion<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 the N.R.A.\u2019s direct contributions were almost a rounding error.<\/p>\n

The N.R.A. directly donated a total of just $1.1 million to candidates for federal office in 2016<\/a>, with 99 percent of that money going to Republicans, while giving\u00a0a total of only $309,000<\/a>\u00a0in direct contributions to state legislative candidates in 2016 and 2017, according to tallies by the\u00a0Center for Responsive Politics<\/a>, which tracks federal donations, and the\u00a0National Institute on Money in State Politics<\/a>, which tracks state-level donations.<\/p>\n

Photo<\/span><\/p>\n
\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>
John P. Morse, who lost his seat in the Colorado Senate in 2013, said the N.R.A. had played a decisive role in motivating Second Amendment voters in a low-turnout race.<\/span>\u00a0Credit<\/span>RJ Sangosti\/The Denver Post, via Getty Images<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Those amounts are dwarfed by the largess of other major contributors. Comcast, through its political action committee and its employees, directly donated\u00a0$12.7 million<\/a>\u00a0in the 2016 campaign cycle to federal candidates or political parties, and the committee for Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant, and its employees directly donated nearly\u00a0$3 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics tallies<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Those numbers are tied to campaign finance reports filed by individual lawmakers. The N.R.A.\u2019s spending on messages like its voter guides does not need to be disclosed, because it falls into the category of a membership-based group communicating with its members.<\/p>\n

When candidates waver in their support for sweeping gun rights, the group does not hesitate to turn on them. After Ted Strickland, a Democrat who earned the N.R.A.\u2019s endorsement as a candidate for governor of Ohio, backed a ban on assault weapons, the organization spent\u00a0more than $1.5 million<\/a>\u00a0in so-called independent expenditures, like TV ads, to defeat him in a 2016 bid for the Senate.<\/p>\n

Ms. Mitchell, a Republican election lawyer who sat on the group\u2019s board for nearly a decade, said its record of loyalty to those who stand by it was a cornerstone of its influence. \u201cThey know that it\u2019s not easy, sometimes, to stick with the N.R.A.,\u201d she said of the group\u2019s leadership. \u201cAt times like this, it\u2019s very easy to get stampeded by the media and the left.\u201d<\/p>\n

While the N.R.A. cuts relatively few checks to individual lawmakers \u2014 a fact that has been noted by\u00a0The Tampa Bay Times<\/a>, among\u00a0others<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 it does devote tens of millions of dollars to ads backing its preferred candidates or criticizing its opponents, often with vividly alarmist messages about crime and self-defense.<\/p>\n

The N.R.A., through its various legal entities, raises money for its political and lobbying efforts and other activities from two primary sources: member dues and contributions from outside supporters, including gun makers like\u00a0Smith & Wesson<\/a>\u00a0and political groups like\u00a0Freedom Partners<\/a>, the Koch family-backed organization.<\/p>\n

The group has fought to keep the identity of many of its\u00a0biggest contributors secret<\/a>, although an\u00a0audit document<\/a>\u00a0filed with the State of North Carolina showed that its total budget was about $420 million in 2016.<\/p>\n

The N.R.A. spent\u00a0$20 million in that year\u2019s election cycle<\/a>\u00a0on ads and other campaign tactics intended to persuade voters to reject Hillary Clinton and an additional $11 million to support Donald J. Trump \u2014 money that is not marked down as a direct contribution to Mr. Trump, because the N.R.A. spent the cash on its own.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

At the state level, the N.R.A. also\u00a0spends much more on these independent expenditures<\/a>\u00a0than on\u00a0direct contributions to candidates<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Expenditures like these are the area of real growth for the N.R.A.: At the federal and state levels, overall independent spending by the group jumped from $9.3 million in the 2009 election cycle to at least $55 million in 2016,\u00a0according to an analysis<\/a>\u00a0by the National Institute on Money in State Politics that was published on Friday.<\/p>\n

\u201cIts most precious resource is perhaps the passion and political engagement of its members and its fans,\u201d said\u00a0Sheila Krumholz<\/a>, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.<\/p>\n

This type of spending also comes with risks, particularly when the group ventures into so-called purpler parts of the country, where the two parties have similar levels of support. The N.R.A.\u2019s presence can draw in an increasingly well-funded collection of groups that support gun control, and can sometimes unnerve moderate voters.<\/p>\n

Photo<\/span><\/p>\n
\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>
Ted Strickland, a Democrat who earned the N.R.A.\u2019s endorsement as a candidate for governor of Ohio, later backed a ban on assault weapons, and the organization spent more than $1.5 million in so-called independent expenditures, like TV ads, to defeat him in a 2016 bid for the Senate.<\/span>\u00a0Credit<\/span>Jay LaPrete\/Associated Press<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Last fall in Virginia, where the N.R.A. is headquartered and once held commanding clout over the state government, Democrats swept all of the state\u2019s major offices after campaigning loudly against the organization. The state\u2019s attorney general,\u00a0Mark Herring<\/a>, a Democrat whom the N.R.A. had targeted for defeat, said the group had insisted on defending a platform that was \u201cbecoming more and more untenable\u201d with voters in the political middle.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere were parts of the state where they wouldn\u2019t run their ads because they knew it would drive voters to supporting me,\u201d Mr. Herring said, adding of the N.R.A.\u2019s campaign spending: \u201cIt did elevate the conversation, the issue, but it was also one that I wanted to talk about.\u201d<\/p>\n

Still, in more rural areas where voters fiercely support gun rights, Democrats have routinely paid a price in recent years for crossing the N.R.A.<\/p>\n

In Colorado, where a Democratic-held state government passed new gun regulations after the 2012 massacre at a movie theater in Aurora, the N.R.A. helped bankroll successful recall campaigns against two Democratic lawmakers, including the powerful president of the State Senate.<\/p>\n

The former Senate leader, John P. Morse, who lost his seat in 2013 by a margin of 319 votes, said the N.R.A. had played a decisive role in motivating Second Amendment voters in a low-turnout race. After that, Mr. Morse said, Democrats have \u201crun like scalded rats from the issue.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThey turn out people that already agree with them,\u201d Mr. Morse said of the N.R.A. \u201cThe reason why gun policy is where it is in this country, at this point, is that the rest of us are too lackadaisical.\u201d<\/p>\n

The organization has focused heavily in recent years on high-profile Senate elections in conservative-leaning states that are key to the balance of power in Congress, amassing an imposing record of victories, including that of Senators Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Tom Cotton of Arkansas.<\/p>\n

But it has had major losses, too, including in the Senate special election in Alabama late last year, in which it\u00a0spent money to try to defeat<\/a>\u00a0Doug Jones, a Democrat who challenged Roy S. Moore.<\/p>\n

Over all, the success rate of the N.R.A. ebbs and flows with political trends. With Mr. Trump on the ballot, candidates it supported directly at the federal level in 2016 won\u00a073 percent of the time<\/a>, while its preferred candidates won only\u00a044 percent of the time<\/a>\u00a0in 2008, when Barack Obama was first elected president.<\/p>\n

In almost all forms of spending \u2014 direct campaign contributions, independent expenditures and lobbying \u2014 gun rights groups have far outspent gun control groups in recent decades, according to data from the\u00a0Center for Responsive Politics<\/a>. However, spending that advocates gun control has picked up in recent years, fueled by groups backed by former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat who was wounded in a 2011 shooting, and by Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York.<\/p>\n

There have been hints in recent days, with\u00a0the protests after the Parkland shooting<\/a>\u00a0and a string of\u00a0businesses cutting ties with the N.R.A.<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 as well as\u00a0a fiery and defensive speech<\/a>\u00a0delivered by its leader at a conservative conference \u2014 that the group is losing ground. Even some of its key political supporters, like Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, a Republican, and top lawmakers in the state, have\u00a0proposed measures like raising the age limit for gun purchases to 21<\/a>.<\/p>\n