Federal Politicians, Money and the NRA

With mass shootings being a relatively common occurrence in the United States and with Congress seemingly unable to do anything about it, data from Open Secrets provides us with a glimpse into the interest group funding underbelly of Washington, particularly as it relates to campaign donations.  

Let's start by looking at the number of gun violence deaths and mass shootings in the United States from data supplied by the Gun Violence Archive (GVA) for 2019:

Here's a graphic showing the same data for 2020 (thus far):

For your information, GVA defines mass shootings as a situation where more than four people are killed or shot, excluding the shooter.

Here is a table showing the same data for the years between 2014 and 2018:

Now, with this data in mind, let's look at how America's federal politicians have benefitted from the pro-gun lobby, particularly the National Rifle Association.  

Here is a table showing the total donations made to federal political candidates by the NRA going back to 1990:

Over the nearly three decade period, the NRA donated a total of $22,927,297 to candidates of both parties with 84 percent of the total going to Republican candidates and 15 percent going to Democratic candidates.

Let's look at the last two election cycles as well as what has happened to the NRA's donations during the current 2020 presidential election cycle.  Here is a list of federal candidates that received more than $2500 from the NRA (either through their PACs or individual members) during the 2016 presidential election cycle from data provided by Open Secrets:

During the 2016 election cycle, the NRA made donations to 241 candidates running for seats in Congress; 218 who where running for seats in the House and 23 who were running for seats in the Senate or 45 percent of all seats available.  During the 2016 election, the NRA donated a total of $1,096,659 to federal political candidates with 99 percent of the total ($1,082,659) going to Republican candidates and 1 percent ($10,500) going to Democratic candidates as listed here:

Here is a list of federal candidates that received more than $2500 from the NRA during the 2018 election cycle:

During the 2018 election cycle, the NRA made donations to 204 candidates running for seats in Congress; 196 who were running for seats in the House and 8 who were running for seats in the Senate or 38 percent of all seats available.  Once again, Republican candidates were the winners when it came to campaign funding by the NRA with 98 percent of the organization's total donations of $880,521 going to the Republicans and only 2 percent or $19,504 going to Democratic candidates.

Finally, let's look at the current 2020 presidential election cycle.  Thus far, the NRA has donated $249,985 to candidates of both parties with Republican candidates receiving 99 percent of the total or $249,985and Democratic candidates receiving only 1 percent of the total or $2,675.  Here are the top recipients (donations totalling $2000 or more) from both Chambers of Congress:

Thus far, the NRA has donated to 128 candidates running for seats in Congress; 128 who are running for seats in the House and 13 who are running for seats in the Senate or 26 percent of all seats available.

When one looks at this data, it is quite clear why gun legislation in the United States is unlikely to change in any meaningful way, particularly with America being as politically polarized as it is.  The National Rifle Association knows that its financial assistance to the campaigns of roughly one-quarter to one-half of men and women running for seats in Congress are going to pay off for its membership, after all, Congress has long proven that it will not bite the hand that is feeding it.

Electoral Integrity in the United States

With the recent announcement by Christopher Krebs, Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security, that Russia, China, Iran and other nations were engaged in efforts to influence U.S. policies and voters in future elections, it certainly appears that Washington's paranoia about electoral meddling are alive and well.  That said, the findings of a recent report from the Electoral Integrity Project would suggest that one of the main problems with electoral integrity in America is not sourced from outside the United States.

The Electoral Integrity Project (EIP) is an independent academic project undertaken by Harvard University and Sydney University, gathering expert perceptions of electoral integrity using 49 indicators in eleven sub-dimensions including:

1.) Laws

2.) Procedures

3.) Boundaries

4.) Voter Registration

5.) Party Registration

6.) Media

7.) Campaign Finance

8.) Voting Process

9.) Vote Count

10.) Results

11.) Electoral Authorities

The report entitled "Why Elections Fail and What We Can Do About It" takes a look at the 2016 American presidential election.  The report opens by noting that partisan political polarization has grown substantially since the "dangling chad" election debacle in 2000 which saw Florida swing a very controversial election to George W. Bush.  Democrats have expressed concerns over the suppression of voting rights and Republicans have expressed concerns over the risks of voter fraud.  Both sides have also taken aim at the gerrymandering of electoral boundaries and the disparities between the Electoral College vote and the popular vote.

  

For the Perceptions of Electoral Integrity report for the 2016 presidential election (PEI-US-2016), the authors gathered evaluations of electoral integrity in their state two weeks after voting day in November 2016 from 726 university-based political scientists with a demonstrated knowledge of the electoral process in the United States.  Respondents completed a brief online questionnaire shown here:

Results were scored out of 100 with higher numbers showing greater electoral integrity.

Let's start with an overall look at the scoring for the eleven sub-dimensions averaged across the entire United States:

As you can see, the area which was judged as having the lowest electoral integrity was district boundaries.  The issue of gerrymandered district boundaries has been consistently regarded as the worst aspect of U.S. elections, in fact, when measured against 153 other nations, the United States came in with the second lowest score.  Gerrymandering results in the repeated elections of certain politicians time and time again and is a tool used by congressmen to ensure that they remain in power.  By gerrymandering a district's boundaries, politicians can ensure that certain people groups are eliminated from voting against them.  Here is a look at some of the most gerrymandered districts:

1.) Maryland's 3rd:

2.) Massachusetts' 7th:

3.) Florida's 5th:

4.) Illinois' 4th:

Two states scored particularly poorly on this aspect of electoral integrity; North Carolina scored a 7 and Wisconsin scored an 8.

The United States also scores poorly on electoral laws.  The imposition of certain laws has resulted in the suppression of voting by legitimate citizens.  The scores for this aspect of American elections ranged from a low of 17 in Wisconsin to a high of 68 in Washington.  Media coverage is also scored poorly with the 2016 election seeing a particularly negative and partisan tone of news coverage by both sides of the political spectrum.  The scores for this aspect of American elections ranged from a low of 40 in Nevada to a high of 68 in Idaho.  Campaign financing also receives a poor score thanks to dark money and unfettered corporate campaign contributions.  In comparison to its peers, the United States finds itself in the lower third of all campaign financing scores on a global basis.

Now, let's look at a map which shows the scoring on a state level.  This map shows the overall scores for all 11 sub-dimensions for electoral integrity for each state:

The lowest overall score was in Arizona with a score of 53 and the highest score was in Vermont with a score of 75. 

Let's close this posting.  While the conclusions of this study suggest that all is not well when it comes to electoral integrity in the United States, particularly in some states, it is a worthwhile exercise to compare the state of electoral democracy in the United States to that of other nations.  In a previous posting I looked at the Variety of Democracies or V-Dem project at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden.  That study shows that the United States scores very modestly when it comes to holding free and fair elections as shown here and, has actually seen its electoral freedom decline over the decade between 2007 and 2017 as shown on this graphic:

While Washington loves to tout its model of democracy as the model that should be emulated by the rest of the world, in fact, as the study of electoral integrity and the study of electoral freedom would suggest, all is not well in the state of the world's most powerful "democracy".  It would certainly appear that outside attempts to influence the 2018 election are the least of America's problems when it comes to the state of its democratic institutions.

Washington - Which Nation is Really Interfering in the Electoral Process?

Updated October 2017

While the American media and Washington are expending substantial energy on the alleged Russian interference in the United States political theatre during the 2016 election cycle, another nation and its American promoters that invest substantially in Washington generally fly under the radar when it comes to political influence-peddling.

According to Open Secrets, the pro-Israel "industry" has made the following political contributions since 1990:

Here is how these contributions were divided along party lines:

Over the two and a half decades, Democrat candidates received $83.16 million or 62 percent of the total compared to $49.95 million or 38 percent of the total for Republican candidates.  As shown on this table, while the majority of the long-term benefits have gone to the Democrats, that amount has varied from a low of 49 percent in 2006 to a high of 75 percent in 1994:

As well, the pro-Israel "industry" has ranked between 27th and 60th place in a field of more than 80 other industries when it comes to their political contribution generosity.  Obviously, the pro-Israel "industry" is not a massive donor like the Securities and Investment, Real Estate and Legal industries but it is still a substantial player in Washington when it comes to "buying" political influence through political donations.

Here is a listing of the major pro-Israel sector donors during the 2016 election cycle: 

Here is a graphic showing more detail on how the donations from the pro-Israel sector were split in the 2016 election cycle:

And, lest we forget, here are the individuals who benefitted the most from the pro-Israel sector's generosity during the 2016 election cycle:

Look who appears at the top of the list - none other than Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton!  Interestingly, Donald Trump does not even appear on the list of the luckiest recipients, in fact, he receive a mere $69,730 from the pro-Israel sector as you can see on this list of presidential candidates:

Let's look at the other side of political influencing in Washington, that of lobbying.  Here is a graphic showing how much the pro-Israel sector has spent on lobbying on an annual basis since 1998:

The latest election year saw the greatest amount spent by the pro-Israel sector with $4,537,343 spent in 2016.  A decade ago, that amount was only $1,779,535 or about 39 percent of the spending in 2016.

Here are the six clients that represented the pro-Israel sector in 2013:

Not surprisingly, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC was responsible for the vast majority of the pro-Israel spending on getting legislators to see things Israel's way in 2013.

Here is a list of the 23 lobbyists that represented Israel's interests in Washington during 2016:

Of the 23 reported lobbyists, 4 or 17.4 percent are classified as "revolvers", that is, former federal employees who are now employed as lobbyists.   It's interesting to see that at least one of the "revolvers", Gordon Bradley, has been employed as a political analyst by the Central Intelligence Agency, and has served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee twice prior to his employment by AIPAC in 1995.  He obviously has an inside track to influencing decision-makers.

In closing, let's switch gears for a moment.  According to the Jewish Virtual Library, since 1949, U.S. foreign aid to Israel has totalled $129.808 billion with $79.823 billion of that being military aid and $30.897 being economic aid.  Military aid has steadily risen from around $300 million annually in the early 1970s to $3.1 billion annually in the period between 2013 and 2017.  There is no about; Washington is a big investor in Israel.

Obviously, Israel has a great deal of interest in what happens in Washington, so much so that the pro-Israel "industry" is willing to spend tens of millions of dollars to "influence" elections and lobby Congress to stay on the good side of its long-term American benefactor.  But, somehow and in some way, that's different than the allegations of Russian "influence" during the 2016 cycle.

Canada's Veterans and Anybody But Conservatives

In case you've forgotten this:

Please remember this when you vote on October 19, 2015:

After all, despite what he keeps telling us, we'll still have our freedom and our nation long after Stephen Harper is but a bitter memory, thanks to Canada's veterans.

And, let's not forget, when the bullets started to fly and his fellow Conservative MPs were under fire, this is what our illustrious Prime Minister did: