I guess it depends on how you look at it . . .

[flamin lib]

0https://www.thetrace.org/2016/05/nra-election-spending-daily-news/



The article suggests that the NRA spending is becoming more targeted and therefore more effective. I disagree.

In 2010 they spent $6.7 million to elect 50 legislators. That's $134,000 for each win. In 2012 the number jumped to $383 million for each win. Two years later in 2014 the cost per win jumped to $969,600 per win.

Seems gun friendly legislators are getting more expensive. From 2010 to 2012 the cost rose 300% and from 2012 to 2014 it rose by 200%. A 700% increase over 6 years is not sustainable.

At this rate by 2022 they'll have to spend the entire campaign donation budget to get just one more Representative. The gun lobby has deep pockets, but they're not bottomless.

So much for the all powerful NRA.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. Or maybe, as recognition of the RKBA continues to expand across the nation

there are fewer targets for the NRA to focus their efforts thus, they're able to concentrate their efforts on the few remaining hold-outs.

As you said: Perspective.

[gejohnston]

2. unsustainable only if the intake is the same

The NRA's "deep pockets" is only about the same as Planned Parenthood's. They spend about the same in lobbying. Of course, they don't have the deep pockets of a certain authoritarian racist and sexist billionaire.

[flamin lib]

3. So you're making the claim that the NRA's income has increased by 700%

between 2010 and 2014?

[gejohnston]

4. no, I'm saying you based your assumptions on incomplete information

assuming the Trace is accurate, which I'm not counting on. It is entirely possible that donations to ILA have increased that much.

[krispos42]

5. I find it interesting

I'm trying (and failing) to catch up with a major backlog of "Minority Report with Sam Sedar" podcasts. I'm in December 2012 right now, shortly after Obama's re-election. In one Friday interview with regular guest Cliff Schecter (sp?), Cliff discusses how the NRA got virtually nothing for their money in challenges to Democrats... the success rate was well into single digits and was used to "show" that the pro-gun movement was ineffective and on the ropes, being overtaken by demographic changes in society.

I guess it depends on the metrics used.

[beevul]

6. "So much for the all powerful NRA."

I'm so glad you wont be heaping blame on them anymore since they aren't all powerful.

[Eleanors38]

9. I saw that.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. OT (slightly) Is there any special reason for posting this here...

...rather than in the GCRA group where it may be better received and of greater interest?

And:
"At this rate by 2022 they'll have to spend the entire campaign donation budget to get just one more Representative."

Does this mean that by 2022 you think the NRA will already have given "good marks" to the other 434 members of congress?

[Eleanors38]

8. So-o-o the NRA has indeed had increased success. That's your evidence.

That they may spend more is another matter (Christ, they've swept out huge numbers of low-cost, low-risk Democrats, so now they are uprooting more entrenched ones -- and evidencing even greater success).

Well, thanks for the post. Maybe some fence-sitting controllers here will take a lesson.



NOTE: From what I have read, the NRA at any given time frequently runs $100,000,000 in the red. But quickly "re-loads." No surprise there.

[Kang Colby]

10. The NRA has won most of the easy races and is now focusing on the more expensive key swing races.

It's expensive, but as Democrats we need to do more to shake the stigma of gun control.