"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

Election Day in Nevada

     For Nevada residents, election day is here starting with the state's Senate campaigns battle for votes.  Early voting is a unique voting technique that many states have adopted over the years.  Early voting is for you if you can't, or just don't want to go to your specified polling place on November 4th.  With early voting, you have a two-week window in which you can cast your ballot at numerous locations around the state.  Early voting can oftentimes take up a majority of the votes cast in some elections.  In the 2008 election, early voting was responsible for 58 percent of the votes cast and in this year's election it is estimated that early voting will count for 40 to 50 percent of the vote.  Candidates use early voting numbers to determine how they stand now, and how they'll stand in November.

     In preparation for early voting, incumbent Senator Harry Reid directed his getting-out-the-vote campaign and has focused its efforts on the Latino community in particular. 

"For the last four years, we have been building a state-of-the-art get-out-the-vote operation geared toward getting our voters to the polls during the final two weeks of this election," said Jon Summers, a Reid campaign spokesman.

     Republican Sharon Angle, Reid's challenger, is famous for her grassroots get-out-the-vote initiative.  "She will personally be precinct walking and knocking on doors throughout early voting to get people to the polls."  Also, the two campaigns are being aided by; President Obama (Reid), Sarah Palin (Angle), and others.

  --After a semester and a half of studying American Politics, I have never come across the "early voting system".  I researched the topic after reading the article, which is found on CNN.com, and I am a fan of it.  Early voting seems to be easier on the voter, and more convenient and accomodating to citizens (especially those who cannot make it to the polls on election day because of work, childcare, etc).  I also like early voting because you can keep a close eye on the candidates' progress all the way to election day, which may also urge more voters to get out and vote.  It will also be interesting to see how Obama and Palin's influence pays off for the two candidates... 

Money... And Midterm Elections

      Donations to House and Senate races across the country have hit near record numbers, much of this coming from anonymous individuals.  Spending on television advertisements made by interest groups has more than doubled what was spent at this point in the 2006 midterm races.  Unlike two years ago, the Republican side has become the biggest players in aiding campaigns financially this year.  As mentioned, These interest groups have become such powerful players this year because of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case that struck down restrictions on corporate spending, along with loosened restrictions governing campaign financing.

      Prior to the decision, third party donors had considerable room regarding sponsorship of political advertisements, as long as they were interpreted as "issue" ads.  Currently, they can simply be more direct with the issues and candidates they're supporting.  As stated by Steven Law, "The principal impact of the Citizens United decision was to give prospective donors a general sense that it was within their constitutional rights to support independent political activity." Others have ruled the court ruling as giving donors a "psychological green light".  The ruling also lifted restrictions on corporations, including labor unions, when it comes to financing radio and television commercials focusing on voters and identifying a political candidate. nytimes.com

      It appears to me that people are contributing more this election season, but i don't believe they're contributing just based on the Citizens United ruling.  I believe these people are contributing because they are concerned about the policies and direction of Congress and our country.  Also, I've noticed that many of these third party donors are still putting out the "issue ads" which were allowable prior to the court ruling, which makes me wonder how much this court case has actually changed.  In contrast, a few nonprofit Republican supporting groups have begun a more aggressive approach asking voters to cast their ballots for or against candidates.  Whether its new laws or just a current trend, it appears that elections in all years are becoming more and more pricey and perhaps increasingly competitive.

Forecasted Affects of the 2010 Census

       As mentioned in an abc news article this week, New York is expected to lose Congressional Representation along with up to nine other states.  States such as Texas, South Carolina, Florida, and a handful more are looking forward to gaining representation after the apportionment process.  The lines will be drawn in December when population counts from the U.S. Census Bureau are due, determining the number of House members allocated to states.

       Chris Jankowski, a redistricting leader for the GOP, predicts that Republicans could add as many as 25 seats in Congress as long as the boundary lines are drawn in their favor.  The Republican State Leadership Committee has budgeted to spend near $20 million to elect Republican state lawmakers who could affect the redistricting process.  "We see a tremendous opportunity to impact control of Congress in 2012 through the state elections that are about to take place," Jankowski said.

       The Census does not only affect redistricting and Congressional Representation (including the Electoral College), it also determines how 400 billion dollars in federal money is distributed among the states and regions.  While some states have neither grow nor shrank in population size, states like Texas as well as California are continuing their past trends of population growth and taking advantage of billions (dollars) in federal assistance as well as a hefty addition to their state's representation. 

       The topic of redistricting/gerrymandering is an already interesting topic to me, but it becomes even more interesting knowing that many large Democratic states are losing representation while many Republican states are gaining.  By looking at the projected figures, it seems that after redistricting, the Republican Party won't be trailing the Democrats in representation by such a large margin.  Also, this worries me because if it comes down to the power being split in Congress, I feel that nothing positive will be done for the American people for at least two more years.  I feel that our economy and country in general has a better chance at recovery and health if both houses are run by one party, and in this case the Democrats.  Lastly, it is disappointing to hear and expect that New York will be losing representation and federal money.

Bush Tax-Cut Extension to Take Place After Elections

     Democrats have chosen to postpone the vote on whether or not to extend the Bush Tax-Cuts until after the upcoming elections, leaving voters in question as to whether their taxes will increase in the upcoming year.  Knowing that the Democrats would not have the 60 votes needed to go through with their tax position, waiting until the deadline is, "the only realistic way to address it" (Richard Durbin).  

     Tax issues have become an important issue heading into November's mid-term elections.  Republicans across the board appear in favor of continuing the entire Bush-Era Cuts, and be extended in the middle of the economic slump.  Not only Republicans feel strongly towards this decision, many Democrats also believe that now is not the time to raise taxes at any income level.

     The Democrats decided not to have a debate on the tax issue and are now facing the question, Do we raise taxes in the middle of a very tough economy?  On the one hand the Republicans (and some Democrats) believe it would be a crippling idea, but the Democrats have sworn that the decision that's made will not be against the will of the American public.  Despite voters following Republican policies, Democrats who are still in control of the chamber will fight for their priorities.

     In my opinion I feel that now is not the time to raise taxes.  Raising taxes may hurt any progress that has been made so far towards pulling out of our economic lows.  I usually feel positive towards higher taxation on the upper class, but now I think we should ride these tax cuts out for at least another year.  It seems that many Americans feel this way, and all-in-all it seems to be the right thing to do.  I'm unsure as to why the Democrats are waiting until post-November to vote on the issue, but the smart thing to do (for Democrats) would be to listen to their voters and decide along those lines, keeping party support.  WashingtonTimes

Obama Reaches Out to Black Voters

     President Obama made a speech Saturday at the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), calling on his civil rights "foot soldiers" for help in the November elections.  Obama made it clear that goals of the past and present have been made thanks to a plan, so he urged everyone to go back to "your neighborhoods and your workplaces, to your churches and barbershops and beauty shops. Tell them we have more work to do. Tell them we can't wait to organize. Tell them that the time for action is now."  

     As the current trends continue, voter turnouts in mid-term elections are always on the low end.  Obama is trying to energize and engage his Democratic minded African-American voting group to vote in the upcoming elections, warning that Republican gains in Congress could upset the goals he shares with the CBC.  Obama stated that tremendous levels of African-Americans turned out for the 2008 election, and that the CBC has helped to deliver some of "the most significant progress in a generation."  He emphasized that this battle is not yet over, emphasizing how past problems with the economy have disproportionately affected African-Americans in this country, and more work needs to be done with the U.S. economy.

     I feel that it was a good idea for Obama to strengthen his ties with the CBC, noting that 95 percent of black voters voted Democrat in the 2008 election.  These same numbers would be a big help in the 2010 mid-term elections as well, continuing Democratic power in both houses of Congress.  A Republican victory and majority in the House of Representatives could be disastrous for the economy and the country, mainly by limiting any government action brought up by either the President (D) or the House (R). 

     I also agree with President Obama that our country still needs work and I feel that there's a better chance of this "work" getting done with the Democrats holding power in both Houses.  I feel that voters will give the Democratic Party one last chance at fixing our economy before turning power over to the Republicans. cqpolitics

Health Care Reform for Illegal Aliens???

     During the week, The Obama Administration moved forward on immigration reform that allows non-citizen Latinos to purchase American health insurance with their own means.   By addressing the Latino health care issue, President Obama considered the reform a "crucial turning point for healthcare in the Latino community," this community being one of the Democrats' key constituencies.  According to TheHill.com, Latinos are the most affected by the past failure of our health care system.  "Nearly one-third of all Latinos are uninsured, which is the highest of any racial or ethnic group. Latinos have persistently had trouble accessing basic health care, while suffering higher rates of obesity and chronic illnesses like heart disease..."  The President's new health care law, the Affordable Care Act, targets the very issues that prevent Latinos (illegal and legal citizens) as well as many Americans from achieving health care in America."

     Its considered fact that the Latino vote assisted Obama and Biden win the presidential race just two years ago.  Taking that into consideration, were these recent health care provisions created out of desperation or fear of losing the Latino vote in upcoming elections?  It seems to me that Obama's new health care plan has a lot of room for clauses, and voter appealing add-ons.  Not to mention, its just a matter of time before the illegal Latinos that can't pay for their own health insurance will be provided it by the federal government and our tax money.  Whether this new reform has arose from criticisms from some Latino advocates in government, or from Democratic pressure towards appeasing the large Latino vote, I feel that this issue needed to be addressed.

Democratic Party Preps for the Mid-term Races

     During the last weekend in August, thousands of volunteers, "Organizing for America" supporters, and grassroots Democrats came together to reach out to voters.  Both major Democratic committees launched their first nationwide get out the vote initiative of the fall campaign, aiming to knock on 400 thousand doors in 75 Congressional Districts.  The goals of the program were for each committee (volunteers and supporters) to knock on 200 thousand doors, to encourage conversations with registered voters and plan communication with them again and again until election day. 

     DCCC chairman Chris Van Hollen said in a statement. "We will continue to meet with voters face to face and spread the message about moving the country forward."  This face-to-face time with voters is important for (Democratic) success in November.

     I have a good feeling about the start of the Democratic "nationwide get out and vote initiative".  I feel that its important that November 2nd is on the minds of American voters, and I think that these volunteers will help inform and persuade people to get out and vote in the mid-term elections.  Mid-term elections have always had a low turnout rate, but I believe early awareness programs like this will help to inform and encourage people to get out and vote. 
     These volunteers are not only speaking to voters who haven't made up their minds about which candidate to support, but they're also speaking with Americans who weren't even aware that there was another important election coming up.  Also, these supporters are going above and beyond the door-to-door approach by making calls to registered  voters.  Overall, I'm impressed with the two Democratic committees get out and vote initiative, and I have a good feeling about the results of their efforts.               www.democrats.org