The NRA and Kay Hagan
Published November 16, 2014
by Rob Christensen, News and Observer, November 15, 2014.
The recently concluded North Carolina Senate race provides a vivid example of why it is difficult to have an intelligent conversation about gun ownership in America.
The National Rifle Association and its various arms spent $5.5 million to defeat Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan. That was the most the gun lobby spent on any race in the country this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Hagan, an ultra-cautious Democratic moderate representing a gun-loving state, would seem an unlikely object for the NRA’s wrath.
She has always described herself as a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights, she comes from a military-rich family, and her children all received hunting licenses when they were born.
She voted against banning high-capacity magazines of more than 10 bullets. She voted to allow firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains, voted to repeal D.C.’s handgun ban, voted for preventing gun ownership from impacting insurance premiums, and she opposed a United Nations arms treaty which gun advocates feared could be used to limit gun rights.
1 vote earns a D+
But then came the massacre of the schoolchildren in Newtown, Conn., by a deranged gunman. In its wake, President Barack Obama pushed greater checks on gun sales.
What emerged from the administration’s initiative was a modest bipartisan Senate proposal by Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania that would require criminal and mental background checks at gun shows and online sales. The bill would have exempted sales or gifting of guns between family members and neighbors. The amendment specifically outlawed any federal gun registry.
The measure received 54 votes in the Senate, including Hagan’s vote in April 2013, short of the 60 needed to break the Republican filibuster.
It turned out to be a $5.5 million vote.
The NRA gave her a D+ grade and began a campaign to oust her from office and elect her opponent, Republican state House Speaker Thom Tillis. Tillis received an A from the NRA after having worked successfully to expand conceal carry laws in North Carolina to include school parking lots, public parks and restaurants serving alcohol.
Tied to Bloomberg
Many of the NRA ads tied Hagan to former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun control advocate. One ad even purported to show Bloomberg’s mansion with a portrait of Hagan on the wall.
“Out-of-state gun control groups are all-in for Kay Hagan, because she helped Obama and Bloomberg push their extreme anti-gun agenda,” says the announcer in an ad sponsored by the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. “Hagan voted for control. So liberal billionaires throw millions at her campaign. That’s how it works.”
Bloomberg’s group, Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, reported spending $2,040 on behalf of Hagan’s campaign, according to Opensecrets.org. But it is impossible to know how much he helped Hagan because he contributed to a number of other groups which helped her.
Among them was Americans for Responsible Solutions, a pro-gun-control group started by Gabrielle Giffords, the congresswoman severely wounded by a deranged gunman. Her organization did spend $944,124 on behalf of Hagan, according to Opensecrets.org.
It’s hard to know what impact the gun control issue played in a Senate race that included so many issues. While $5.5 million is a lot, it is still a modest amount in a race that cost $111 million.
Much was made during the campaign that Hagan voted 96 percent of the time with Obama. But Hagan could and did disagree with Obama on some issues.
But Hagan’s failure to agree with the NRA 100 percent of the time proved costly.
The NRA not only delivered retribution against Hagan. It also sent a message to all other politicians that the gun lobby is not to be crossed.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/11/15/4321626/christensen-the-nra-and-kay-hagan.html?sp=/99/102/
November 16, 2014 at 11:03 am
Richard Bunce says:
That $5.5M in NRA ads did not buy a single vote in November... for instance it did not buy the authors vote. NRA officials can support and oppose who they want and express themselves and their views to the public. IF the NRA members funding them do not like it they can withdraw their funding.
November 16, 2014 at 11:51 pm
Norm Kelly says:
' a vivid example of why it is difficult to have an intelligent conversation about gun ownership'. It's not the fault of the NRA that it's difficult to have an intelligent conversation about gun ownership. It's not the fault of the NRA that it's difficult to have a discussion about gun ownership based on facts.
It's the fault of libs/socialists who continue to lie about gun ownership. It's the fault of libs/socialists who refuse to acknowledge that gun ownership is GUARANTEED in the US CONSTITUTION! It's the fault of libs/socialists who refuse to acknowledge that it's just possible for a legal gun owner to protect themselves from law breaking gun owners. Gun free zones, created by unintelligent, lying, uninformed, truth-avoiding libs/socialists are simply places where unarmed people gather for the 'pleasure' of illegal gun owners/nutjobs who know that they will be free to create carnage!
'Hagan, an ultra-cautious Democratic moderate'. Only in the mind of a dedicated, die-hard socialist is K an ultra-cautious MODERATE! K may have represented a gun-loving state, but she didn't want it to stay that way. She was an OBVIOUS and easy target for the NRA. K is such a dedicated socialist that she asked for the name of Obamacancer to be changed to something indicating a Single Payer system. K was more interested in voting for a single payer system than she was in obamascare. What do thinking people call 'single payer system'? Socialized Medicine! What is MODERATE about wanting to force socialized medicine on the masses? The libs/socialists tried to tell us during the campaign that K was a moderate, and fortunately a majority knew this to be just another lib lie! Kinda like keeping your doctor. Or keeping your insurance policy. Lies! Not kinda lies that won't hurt anyone! "did you eat that cookie?" 'no' Even when this is a lie, it doesn't hurt anyone. Forcing me to buy inferior insurance, with a higher deductible, and a higher premium, while telling me that it cost less, covers more, and is actually better insurance is A LIE THAT HURTS people. Both the beloved 'poor' and the hated 'wealthy' are hurt by socialized medicine. K was a proponent of socialized medicine not just obamacancer! Some MODERATE!
'Hagan could and did disagree with Obama on some issues'. Really? Which ones? We've been told numerous times, uncountable times, that K is a moderate. Is there any proof or are we just supposed to take the word of libs that K isn't as far left as those claiming she's moderate? What is moderate about the IRS targeting political opponents? What has K done to get to the bottom of the scandal? What has K done to get the truth from Comrade Barack? What bills did K propose to bring the truth out? What is moderate about the central planners deciding to attack a PRIVATE business that wanted to EXPAND to another state, to build a new manufacturing facility in another state, to hire MORE employees in another state? Some of us remember Boeing's decision to EXPAND into SC. This administration fought Boeing and attempted to prevent them from expanding their business and hiring more employees. At a time when unemployment was through the roof (as opposed to now, of course!). What did K do to prevent her comrades from pursuing this destructive attack on a private business? What bill did K promote to reign in this out-of-control arm of the administration? What budget item did K propose reducing or eliminating to make it impossible for this fiasco to continue unabated? Seems to me that a moderate or conservative politician would want the central planners to live by the rules laid out in the US CONSTITUTION more than they would want to support outrageous and ILLEGAL activity of their comrades. Someone representing gun-loving citizens of NC would have taken a stand that supported North Carolinians BEFORE they supported 'the party'. We expect Russians to support the party. We expect our elected officials to support WE THE PEOPLE!
November 17, 2014 at 8:57 am
Greg Dail says:
"Democratic moderate"? Sure she is Rob! Voting with Harry Reid and Obama 96% of the time would suggest otherwise.
