I’ll start this letter with a controversial view. The NRA has not bought our politicians.
Instead, a critical mass of elected officials leads many to this conclusion when they do not act in the face of tragedy when they respond to a political reality within their support base. That reality is that a representative’s seat will be in jeopardy if factions of their supporters become activated and move against them for taking a position that they do not favor. Plainly, there are a significant number of voters who care deeply about this issue and vote on it as one of their top concerns.
This is what leads to inaction on gun issues, not the financial power of the NRA.
Furthermore, promoting the view that it is financial power, rather than the contentions of actual voters, instills an unwarranted sense of cynicism in our political process and robs us of the agency we have to change it when we are not satisfied.
With this point in mind, it becomes clear that one’s ability to achieve a legislative change of our nation’s gun laws is the job of those seeking reform to make effective arguments to accomplish their desired political ends.
Recognizing that it is people and not special interests that dominate this issue can inform efforts to achieve policy changes that the overwhelming majority of Americans support to help avoid tragedies like the mass shooting that occurred in Parkland, Florida on Feb. 14.
To address the question of the financial power of the NRA, one would be well served to view a graphic posted by The New York Times opinion page on Oct. 4, 2017.
The graphic details which senators and congressmen have received the most financial support through both direct contributions and independent spending on their behalf from the NRA during their careers.
The individual at the top of this list is Sen. John McCain. The piece states that the NRA has spent $7,740,521 to support the senator during his 34-year career in Congress and the Senate as well as during his presidential run in 2008.
This number pales in comparison to the roughly $500 million he has raised in exclusively direct contributions during his time in office.
While Sen. McCain is a bit of an outlier from the group due to his prodigious fundraising record, we can take the case of Congressman Mike Simpson, the fourth largest recipient of NRA support of current members in the House of Representatives, as a more characteristic example.
In his 18 years in Congress, the Times found that the NRA had spent $385,731 to support the Congressman directly and indirectly, again a small figure compared to the $9,650,569 in direct contributions alone that he received over that span.
While this spending surely has an impact on the Federal debate around gun violence, it simply can’t be true that this relatively minor amount of funding is causing the failure of the legislature to pass even broadly supported measures that would deal with the access of arms for those with mental illness, ban sales to those on no-fly lists or institute background checks at private gun shows.
Pew found that over 80 percent of Americans support each of these reforms while conducting polling in 2017.
Money doesn’t stop progress on issues with so much support.
Rather, a more likely case can be made that a significant number of voters, most prominently present among those who vote in Republican primary elections, care a lot about gun rights and are activated to vote on this issue when they see it being debated.
This fact needs to be recognized and should feature prominently in any campaign that seeks to impact our gun laws.
What needs to be understood is that campaigns that pursue reforms that a subset of voters vehemently oppose are unlikely to become law and certainly will not at the federal level unless the Democratic Party gains significantly more political power.
With this in mind, campaigns seeking reform should put forth specific messages that clearly present to these voters that a massive reform agenda that would activate them is not being presented.
Instead, one that focuses on issues like the availability of the bump-fire stocks that were used in the Las Vegas shooting in October 2017, the banning of sales to those on no-fly lists, the increase in funding for both research and treatment for mental illness, the institution of liability for reckless distributors and users who do not safely store their weapons, and certain reforms to ensure private sales cannot occur without proper vetting. These items have a fair chance to become law and, while I personally may favor more broad measures, one must be wary of an overreach that put a chance at real progress in jeopardy.
A watered down campaign is unsatisfying to many and will surely not serve as a panacea. However, we are in the midst of a national crisis that, while seemingly impossible to eradicate, can be mitigated if a campaign is led with proper moderation.
In fairness, moderation can be a difficult task for most to express when facing the outrage that comes so naturally after an event like we just saw in Parkland.
We read stories of teachers sacrificing their lives for their students, of brothers texting each other in terror and of the unimaginable horrors that grieving parents have been forced to suffer through after an event like this one.
For families touched by something as terrible as the Parkland shooting moderation is probably an impossible response.
However, for those of us who do have the capacity to moderate, even if we are tempted by the promise of more, moderation offers us the potential of progress.
Simply put, we owe it to the families that will be at risk in a next tragedy to do what we can to deliver a clear message that has the support to become law and can save lives.
Peter Fishkind
Roslyn Heights
