"Power" Within the NRA

     Though the article is a little dated (2007), the facts are still relevant today.  The NRA has money, motivated members, and powerful allies and influence in Washington.  Come election time, there isn't a doubt in anyone's mind that the NRA can and will successfully bring in pro-gun freshmen to House seats, whether Democrat or Republican.  Despite the near dozen gun-related deaths in America daily, somehow the NRA continues to uphold citizens' second amendment gun rights.
     A major factor as to why the NRA gets what it wants is the fact that it's approximate 4 million members vote at a very high rate.  As stated in the article, NRA members vote in elections 95 percent of the time!  This is unreal when compared to the turnout of America as a whole.  Some quick figures tell us just how many voters this group can bring to the polls; 95 percent of its 4 million members is around 3.8 million votes.  This to me is even more important than the millions spent on campaigns, advertisements, and other questionably affective investments. 

     It was also stated that issue networks arise around the NRA and its pro-gun ideals.  Alliances between hunters and gun rights groups have helped the efforts of the NRA in recent times.  The large membership and spending budget of the NRA leaves many politicians cowering, afraid that their stance on legislation may result in opposition by the group as well as other consequences.
     After reading the article and the class text, I feel that in order to rank the power of an interest group, you have to take into account its membership, lobbying skills/tactics, and where ( to whom or how much) they spend their money.  The NRA appears very powerful to me because of its large member-base.  I feel that with the backing of an almost guaranteed 4 million votes, any organization could get its views heard and put into law with little competition.

The True Color of Money Working on Congress

     As stated in the article, body scanner makers who have multi-million dollar contracts with the federal government have doubled their lobbying spending over the past 5 years.  These lobbying efforts have also involved many high-profile former government officials, which is nothing new to lobbying government/Congress.  As mentioned in the article, L-3 Communications Co. has spent approximately $4.3 million trying to influence Congress through lobbying, and as a result has earned $39.7 million in body scanner sales to the federal government.  Other makers of the machines have also spent unusual amounts of money in recent times, pushing the issue that these machines are necessary in foiling terrorist plots. 
     The use of body-scanning machines has ignited controversy over privacy and health concerns, though after research I found that these health concerns are very minimal (1 in 30 million chance of getting cancer from the machines' radiation).  In a statement, Transportation Security Administration officials said they conduct "comprehensive" research and testing before buying a product.  This may be true, but it may also be true that a good lobbyist can pressure a member connected to Congress to use a less effective machine (or perhaps more personally violating machine) in place of the "better product".

     It has come to my attention that this recent legislation may have occurred simply because people "understand what the threat is and seeing these capable solutions" (Linda Daschle).  This may be the case, that people are willing to give up even more freedoms in our country's airports in return for safety, but there's always the chance that corporate lobbyists have affected this recent change.  I feel that it is a little of both, that people's willingness to give up rights for their safety made it easier for lobbyists to push their company's machines into airports.  I am on the fence as to whether or not these body-scanning machines are effective in fighting terrorism and/or too revealing of a person's body.  Even if the machines are effective, it's questionable as to whether or not this government spending was really necessary (in addition to federal TSA employees).

What Has NRA Lobbying Really Done to Gun Control

     As stated in a current New York Times article, gun lobbying efforts and the detriment of public safety has brought about a "sorry state of gun control."  Also mentioned was that workers in the National Tracing Center are highly backlogged on handwritten paper records submitted by the nation's gun dealers, leaving possible gun control crimes hidden for months.  Crime continues to progress, tens of thousands of gun deaths included, as government employees sit helpless with endless work ahead of them.
     The Washington Post described the National Tracing Center's dilemma to roadblocks and internal damage brought to the table by aggressive, bipartisan gun lobbyists.  It is almost certain that the NRA has more power in law than the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).  The ATF is underfunded, short staffed, and is failing to fight back against powerful gun lobbyists who seem to give gun owner's limitless rights.  The Bureau is assigned to 115,000 gun dealers with only 600 agents, which is around one agent per 112 gun stores/dealers.  There is too large a gap in these numbers, leaving some dealers with eight-year gaps between record and store inspections.
     Also mentioned in the article is fairly recent obstructions in Congress, where police can no longer consult the ATF archives of gun traces from dealer to owner.  The "ATF Reform and Firearms Modernization Act" potentially provides violators with protections against police dealing with their crimes.
     I am not entirely in agreement with this article, referring to all pro-gun lobbyist' actions as negative.  I do feel that some lobbyists/ interest groups have too much power when it comes to influencing legislation, but I also lay some blame on the government itself.  Had the ATF been properly funded, they could resist, inspect, and operate effectively with the influence of lobbyists.

Where is NRA Money Spent Come Election Time?

     As stated by Fortune magazine, the NRA is the most powerful lobby off all, placing in the top of its list of “Power 25” lobbying groups in recent years.  In 2010 alone, the NRA spent approximately $1,265,000 on lobbying government officials, with 91 hired lobbyists, and around 190 bills that were "influenced".  Although the contribution numbers are are down in 2010 as far as contribution trends and lobbying totals are concerned, this doesn't mean the NRA has went soft.

     The NRA launched a multimillion-dollar campaign ad program for TV, radio, and the mail, to back up chosen pro-gun candidates in House, Senate and governor’s races.  The total price of their first-wave campaign ads were recorded at $6.75 million, hitting targeted Senate races like the ones in Colorado, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin.  The association also tried their luck influencing gubernatorial elections in Arizona, Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, among others.

     The Association has also received some criticisms, mainly based on their support for some Democratic Congressional candidates as seen in this article.  This double-sided support is nothing new for the NRA, and they have consistently endorsed and voted for candidates of both parties that are willing to support gun rights and share NRA views (Harry Reid for example).

     In my opinion, I feel that it's a good idea for the NRA to support both major parties (not just the GOP).  It is beneficial to the goals of the organization and its members if they focus on both parties, especially if the party in power is not their favorable party, the GOP.  As backed up in the article, by supporting both Democrats and Republicans it ensures that sudden shifts in power do not jeopardize the rights of gun owners.  This strategy has worked for NRA for many decades, and it seems to be the logical way to aim its resources.

NRA Members Only Incentives

     As stated by the NRA's Executive Vice President, Wayne LaPierre, "As a member, you'll have a powerful voice in protecting our Constitution, plus a wide range of benefits that add up to savings, convenience, and fun..." Why wouldn't anyone want to support and be a member of the National Rifle Association after hearing a line like that.  These benefits, savings, convenience, and fun are referring to the organization's selective incentives which as we learned in class are described as; subtle rewards that an organization like the NRA exclusively provides to their members in return for their support, loyalty, and donations/ membership fees.

     These various incentives are required for an organization to maintain member contributions and activity within the group.  The NRA's selective incentives include an official NRA Membership ID card, a choice of subscription to one of three magazines, and youths receive a subscription to "Insights" magazine.  The NRA will also offer low cost life, health, and accident insurance, along with individual property and liability insurance.  Some insurance benefits that come at NO CHARGE include; $5,000 of Accidental Death and Dismemberment coverage (annnual members), $10,000 of Accidental Death and Dismemberment coverage (life members),  members killed in the line of duty will have $25,000 in coverage (law enforcement employees), and lastly $1,000 of ArmsCare coverage to cover damage to your weapons.  An additional benefit, which is perhaps most important, to being a member is that you are provided with up to date alerts/information about legislation involving firearms and hunting at the federal, state and local levels of government.

     I was astonished at the number and value of benefits that are provided to an NRA member as stated on their web site, and with some additional research I found members only discounts to hotels, car insurance, health services, rental car services, and much more.  I was actually interested in atleast one of these benefits and decided to look into the membership costs.  I found that a one-year membership cost $35, and that a lifetime membership costs $1,000 (with differing yearly rate found on this site).  After reviewing the list of selective, members only incentives, I would agree that being a member of the NRA would benefit just about anyone.   

NRA Challenges a Recent Handgun Ban

     As America's oldest civil rights and sportsman's group, it was expected that the National Rifle Association would have no part of a recent federal handgun ban. In Fairfax, Va the NRA is challenging (in US district court) federal laws that prohibit law-abiding Americans eighteen through twenty years of age from legally purchasing a handgun through a federally licensed firearm dealer. The NRA was quick to point out that in Heller and McDonald,  the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for all law-abiding citizens.  This being said, it is not fair or just to only offer this right to people 21 years of age and over.  Americans are considered to be an adult, in almost all instances, at the age of 18 and that's when they should be granted to right to bear arms.
     As stated in the article, "At eighteen years of age...   citizens are eligible (and male citizens could be conscripted) to serve in the military-to fight and die by arms for the country." The case is supported by the NRA, D'Cruz v. BATFE, and deals with a young man under the age of 21 pleading as to why he (and millions of others) deserves the right to bear arms at his age.   The Supreme Court has called the handgun "the quintessential self-defense weapon" and "the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home."  The NRA believes that this right and freedom should be offered to every law-abiding adult, 18 years of age and older and will continue to pressure the courts.
     I agree with the NRA in this case, and I feel that they have a strong case with the plaintiff, Mr. D'Cruz.  D'Cruz is a model student, citizen, and gun owner and I feel that he will be a strong factor in future of this handgun ban.  The NRA's mission is to uphold Second Amendment's rights and to push for firearm law enforcement, and this recent challenge in court shows their desire for just that.

Does the Public Care About Campaign Finance???

      It is known that the 5-4 vote in Citizens United V. FEC held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment.  This being said, it is no secret that this years mid-term elections are becoming extremely expensive in the last two weeks of campaigning.  Donations and party contributions can now be kept secret, and millions of dollars are being slid through “social welfare” nonprofits aka 501(c)(4).  We are within two weeks of voting day and debates are almost non-existent dealing with campaign finance.  It has also come to a point where we, the public, know more about a candidate's dating history then we know about their financial honesty dealing with campaigns and the funding for them.
     For example, Stephen Fincher (D) who's running for an open seat in the 8th district of Tennessee, has had a complaint against him regarding a 250,000 dollar loan to his campaign.  Fincher, a soybean farmer, listed his family farm as his only asset in his financial disclosure form, and also included was an income of around $60,000 annually.  His $250,000 loan to himself/his campaign was listed as personal funds, but turned out to actually be a loan from Gates Banking & Trust, where his father holds a seat on the board of trustees.  After review, there's no question that the large sum of money came as an illegal corporate contribution.  Fincher chose not to debate his opponent and has refused to answer questions about the monies therefore, "If Fincher won't live by the rules of full disclosure and transparency before the election, how can he be trusted afterward?”
     This has brought to my attention the ignorance of many towards campaign finance.  The media, interest groups, and candidates alike point out things about an opponent's (or candidate's) character that may mean very little to their effectiveness in public office.  To me, I would like to know their honesty when dealing with rules, regulations, and laws that we all, as citizens, have to follow.  It upsets me that most of the voting public are unaware of current problems with campaign finance and criminality in the case of Stephen Fincher, and rather they are informed of or choose to remember things like a candidate's marriage history, their sexual preference, race and so on.     

TheHill 10/11/10