Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Gun Rights vs. Gun Control - Who Controls Washington?

I haven't published on this subject for quite some time but with the recent events in the United States and the nation's ongoing issues with gun-related violence, I wanted to take another look at the connection between gun rights and politics.  Thanks to Open Secrets, we have a clear picture of the contrast between the political power of the gun rights and the gun control sides of the equation.  

Let's start by looking at the gun rights side of the debate.   Here is a bar graph showing the political contribution trends of the gun rights lobby for each election cycle since 1990:


In total, since 1990, the gun rights side has contributed $41.934 million to candidates running for federal office.

Here is a bar graph showing how political contributions from the gun rights side of the debate have benefitted the Republican side of the political spectrum:


Of the total of $41.934 million since 1990, 89 percent has gone to Republican candidates and 11 percent has gone to Democratic candidates.

Here is a breakdown of which gun rights associations donated to candidates in the 2016 election cycle:


Here are the top 20 recipients of gun rights donations during the 2016 cycle, noting that Donald Trump heads the list by a wide margin:


Now, let's switch to the gun control side of the debate.  Here is a bar graph showing the political contribution trends of the gun control lobby for each election cycle since 1990:


In total, since 1990, the gun control side has contributed $4.186 million to candidates running for federal office, roughly one-tenth of the donations that were made by the gun rights lobby over the same timeframe.

Here is a bar graph showing how political contributions by the gun control side have benefitted the Democratic side of the political spectrum:


Of the total of $4.186 million donated since 1990, 96 percent has gone to Democratic candidates and 4 percent has gone to Republican candidates.

Here is a breakdown of which gun control associations donated to candidates in the 2016 election cycle:


Here are the top 20 recipients of gun control donations during the 2016 cycle noting that Hillary Clinton heads the list by a very wide margin, even when compared to her competitor, Bernie Sanders: 


As we all know, lobbying is a Washington pastime.  It is through this mechanism that various interest groups get Congress and the President to see things "their way".  Let's now take a look at  a comparison of how much was spent by the gun rights and gun control sides of the debate on lobbying in Washington.

Here is a bar graph showing how much the gun rights lobby spent on lobbying annually in Washington going back to 1998:


In the peak year (2013), the gun rights lobby spent $15.292 million on lobbying. 

Here is a list of the major gun rights groups lobbying in Washington and how much they have spent so far in 2017:


Let's look at the spending on lobbying by the gun control side of the debate.  Here is a bar graph showing how much the gun control lobby spent on lobbying annually in Washington going back to 1998:


In the peak year (2013), the gun control lobby spent $2.217 million on lobbying, roughly one-seventh of that spent in the same year by the gun rights lobby. 

Here is a list of the major gun control groups lobbying in Washington and how much they have spent so far in 2017:


Let's summarize.  We all know that money talks in Washington, D.C. and big money talks louder than small money.  It's pretty clear from looking at both the campaign contributions and the amount spent by lobbyists which side of the gun debate has the most sway in Washington.  If we expect that any changes in America's gun laws will be forthcoming in light of yet another mass shooting, I suspect that we'll be waiting a long, long time.


7 comments:

  1. Darwin is a Harsh MistressOctober 4, 2017 at 11:19 AM

    You should tally the hundred million Americans that contribute that massive wad of cash to be spread around D.C.'s swamp.

    We will not allow you and your control-freak pals to disarm us. Period. We are not going to die like oppressed Soviet subjects by either exposure in Siberia or a bullet to the head at NKVD regional headquarters.

    Stick that in your bong and smoke it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'Gun control' is NEVER about guns, or violence prevention,... it's ALL about CONTROL.

    ALL of the greatest violence/massacres of the last century were committed by GOVERMENTS, against UNARMED people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YES!
      We will not allow communists to disarm us, then slaughter us. This is not eastern Europe, THIS IS AMERICA!

      Delete
  3. School shootings will stop altogether when guns are subject to the most confiscatory controls, and outright banning of guns in the hands of the people. No question about it. My question then is what weapon will the likes of this latest deranged mentally ill kid then use to carry out their blood bath massacres. Speaking in a thought experimental way about, I would go on line and learn how to make a really really good bomb to blow up an entire school full of kids who dissed me. Or treated me with scorn, ridicule, and insult. Beware of the law of unintended consequences in a country with 360,000,0000 people and 14 million illegals, AND a media that exploits these horrific incidents for their own ratings and material gains. Take the money out of the media and these school shootings wouldn't even result in one in million years.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The DEMOCRATS can't name ONE law they 'propose' that would do anything except restrict the 2D Amendment rights of citizens. BY DEFINITION the criminal element doesn't 'obey laws'; Aren't schools 'Gun Free Zones'? So why do 'shooters' violate "the law" and bring guns to schools? the ENTIRE "gun control" debate is 98 Octane Bull Shit. The American Revolution started over 'Gun Control'; Look at history and see what the mission of the British force from Boston that was going to Lexington and then Concord.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The common theme here is that a large number of people of influence, many of whom live with heavily armed security, are perfectly willing to use lethal force to disarm the American public.
    Clear enough, lets us know where they're coming from and in my opinion defines the rules of engagement quite specifically.
    Shortly after Pearl Harbor Admiral Yamamoto was asked about a possible invasion of continental United States. Having attended American university he said that there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. How do you think our lords and masters are going to feel when all those rifles are turned on them.
    https://wellregulatedmilitia.com/

    ReplyDelete