2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,365
- 52,611
- 2,290
Yep........the NRA doesn't spend as much as anti gunners on elections........
CPRC at National Review: "The Myth of the Big Bad Gun Lobby" - Crime Prevention Research Center
But gun-control groups spend much more money than the NRA does. Why aren’t they more successful in buying votes?
Just look at donations to federal candidates during the two years leading up to the 2014 congressional elections, the last full election cycle. Michael Bloomberg, who has a net worth of $48.2 billion, gave $28.6 million to candidates by himself. His organization, Everytown for Gun Safety, which gets virtually all of its money from Bloomberg, gave another $298,000.
By contrast, the NRA gave just $982,000, or 1/30th the amount spent by Bloomberg. While not all of Bloomberg’s campaign donations were driven by gun issues, his spending clearly dwarfs what the NRA could give.
In state and local races around the country, Bloomberg has deployed resources that the NRA could only dream of. In just two Virginia state-senate races in 2015, Bloomberg spent a total of $2.2 million. That is vastly more money than the NRA was able to spend on any race for the U.S. Congress. Bloomberg spent $150,000 alone on the election for Milwaukee sheriff, in an attempt to unseat outspoken gun-control opponent David Clarke — more than the combined amount that Clarke and his opponent spent on their own campaigns. . . .
--------------
When Advertising Age added up TV-advertising expenditures by those on either side of the gun-control issue for 2013, it found that gun-control groups outspent gun-rights groups by 7.4 to one, with 85 percent of their money coming from Bloomberg. And even setting aside Bloomberg’s massive contributions, the gun-control advocates still spent twice as much as the NRA and other pro-self-defense groups.
Read more at: The Myth of the Big Bad Gun Lobby
CPRC at National Review: "The Myth of the Big Bad Gun Lobby" - Crime Prevention Research Center
But gun-control groups spend much more money than the NRA does. Why aren’t they more successful in buying votes?
Just look at donations to federal candidates during the two years leading up to the 2014 congressional elections, the last full election cycle. Michael Bloomberg, who has a net worth of $48.2 billion, gave $28.6 million to candidates by himself. His organization, Everytown for Gun Safety, which gets virtually all of its money from Bloomberg, gave another $298,000.
By contrast, the NRA gave just $982,000, or 1/30th the amount spent by Bloomberg. While not all of Bloomberg’s campaign donations were driven by gun issues, his spending clearly dwarfs what the NRA could give.
In state and local races around the country, Bloomberg has deployed resources that the NRA could only dream of. In just two Virginia state-senate races in 2015, Bloomberg spent a total of $2.2 million. That is vastly more money than the NRA was able to spend on any race for the U.S. Congress. Bloomberg spent $150,000 alone on the election for Milwaukee sheriff, in an attempt to unseat outspoken gun-control opponent David Clarke — more than the combined amount that Clarke and his opponent spent on their own campaigns. . . .
--------------
When Advertising Age added up TV-advertising expenditures by those on either side of the gun-control issue for 2013, it found that gun-control groups outspent gun-rights groups by 7.4 to one, with 85 percent of their money coming from Bloomberg. And even setting aside Bloomberg’s massive contributions, the gun-control advocates still spent twice as much as the NRA and other pro-self-defense groups.
Read more at: The Myth of the Big Bad Gun Lobby
