dagblog - Comments for "National Rifle Assnc: Recipients "

I think that was true in the

trkingmomoe — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:10:19 +0000

In reply to I don't think -- except in a

I think that was true in the past but they had to go under ground to hide from the ass kicking they are getting on the internet. That may make them less a threat in future.

I was wondering that to. All

trkingmomoe — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:03:04 +0000

In reply to Thanks for this, I have saved

I was wondering that to. All I can think is that the gun manufactures can now dump their money in the dark in pacs. NRA is getting less money to spread around. If NRA is preceived as evil with the general public, the gun manufacture's money will decrease. Social Networking is going after the NRA right now and exposing all their weakness and evil.

I don't think -- except in a

acanuck — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:27:00 +0000

In reply to National Rifle Assnc: Recipients

I don't think -- except in a few very specific cases -- actual campaign contributions are the way the NRA influences congresscritters to toe their line. The threat of member mobilization and single-issue advertising directed at their defeat is sufficient.

You take down a handful of gun-control advocates, then the subtlest implied threat is enough: "Nice little political career you got here. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it!"

The data suggest that's even more true since Citizens United (although maybe the money is still there, just being funnelled through invisible superPACs).

Thanks for this, I have saved

Aunt Sam — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:45:52 +0000

In reply to National Rifle Assnc: Recipients

Thanks for this, I have saved link and data. It is interesting to compare (i.e.) the 2010 funding to the 2012. Mega difference - would like to know the reason.