NRA Explore
APPEARS IN News

Dim Journalists Rely Too Heavily on Sunlight Study

Friday, November 16, 2012

With plenty of legitimate post-election stories needing to be reported, the anti-gun media have instead chosen to highlight a study that misleads readers about the effectiveness of NRA campaign spending.

No one is disputing that the result of the presidential contest was a loss for Second Amendment supporters, but that does not negate the strong message pro-gun voters sent on November 6th.   We maintained pro-gun majorities in both houses of the United States Congress.  We saw the passage of a constitutional amendment in Louisiana which builds a wall of protection around the Second Amendment in that state.  Voters in Idaho, Kentucky, and Nebraska passed significant Right-to-Hunt constitutional amendments.  And voters in nine Illinois counties sent a message to lawmakers in that state with votes in support of the right to carry firearms for self-defense.

And yet, the gloating media has seized on one claim that there was a low "return on investment" for NRA-ILA and NRA Political Victory Fund spending in this election cycle, a conclusion at which you could only arrive if you had negligible integrity and a distinct bias.  It also shows a lack of attention to fact, as the authors of the study, the Sunlight Foundation, falsely claimed that the NRA-PVF financially supported Indiana U.S. Senate candidate Richard Murdock over Joe Donnelly in the general election when a simple check of a variety websites would have shown that we did not.

The study that purportedly demonstrates our low "return on investment" uses a fundamentally flawed process which is based on the percentage of a group's campaign expenditures that were spent on winning candidates, versus those who were defeated.

Even if the Sunlight Foundation had all the facts correct – which it does not – this methodology creates a skewed picture of campaign effectiveness, as we can see with a simple thought experiment.

Consider groups A and B. Group A spends $1 on a long-shot candidate and $99 on an unopposed incumbent.  The Sunlight Foundation study would say group A got a 99 percent "return on investment" even though it probably wasted 100 percent of its money.  Group B spends $1 showing support in a somewhat contested race, but spends $99 on a challenger in a tight election where everyone agrees $99 could help make a difference, though in the end the challenger loses narrowly.  The Sunlight Foundation study would give Group B a 1% "return on investment" even though Group B did the right thing.

In this election cycle, NRA is more like group B, spending money where it counted in amounts that could have made a difference.  We invested heavily in races where there was a distinct choice between a good candidate and a bad one.  Spending our money anywhere else would have been an insult to our members, a poor strategic use of our resources, and would have poorly served the cause of defending the Second Amendment.

We stand by our decision to spend every penny exactly where it was spent, and we applaud every NRA member and gun owner who turned out to the polls on November 6th to support pro-gun candidates and ballot measures.

And, with all the reporting about campaigns and their much vaunted ground games, remember that NRA-ILA hired 25 Campaign Field Representatives who worked in 13 tough battleground states.  Of the 32 races in which our CFRs were engaged, our winning percentage was 75%.

TRENDING NOW

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Michigan: Pro-Gun Bill Scheduled for Hearing Tomorrow

Tomorrow, February 10, House Bill 4795 is scheduled for a hearing in the House Local Government Committee at ...

News  

Friday, February 5, 2016

Bill Aimed at Ending Operation Choke Point Passes House

On Thursday, a bi-partisan majority of the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 766, the ‘‘Financial Institution Customer ...

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Connecticut: Deeply Flawed Bill that Violates Due Process Filed in Hartford

In a move that threatens not only your Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but also your Fifth ...

News  

Friday, February 5, 2016

“F” Stands for Fail: Georgia College Instructor Boots Uniformed Cop, Gets Lectured in Return

Colleges usually take great pride in proclaiming their “diversity” and “inclusiveness,” but simply wearing a tool of his ...

Monday, February 8, 2016

West Virginia: Permitless Carry Passes House of Delegates

Today, House Bill 4145, NRA-endorsed legislation that would allow an individual to lawfully carry a concealed handgun without ...

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Oregon: Anti-Gun Bill Scheduled for Work Session Tomorrow

Tomorrow, February 10, House Bill 4147 has been scheduled for a work session at 3:00pm in HR 343 of ...

Monday, February 8, 2016

Tennessee: Pro-Gun Legislation to Be Heard in the General Assembly

This week, several pro-gun bills are scheduled for hearings in the Tennessee General Assembly.

News  

Friday, February 5, 2016

Fourth Circuit Requires “Strict Scrutiny” for Maryland Gun and Magazine Ban

It hasn’t been a good week for Martin O’Malley, former governor of Maryland, would-be contender for President of ...

News  

Friday, January 1, 2016

How Gavin Newsom’s Initiative Will Flatten California Gun Owners

On Oct. 15, 2015, California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom held a carefully orchestrated press conference to trumpet his ...

News  

Friday, February 5, 2016

Europeans Discover Virtues of Armed Self-defense as EU Bureaucrats Seek New Gun Controls

At the same time the European Union bureaucrats in Brussels are trying to foist further gun controls on ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -
NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.