BUZZ
ANALYSIS: Researchers shocked a political action group does what it’s supposed to
There’s an old cliché which asks “What would we do without studies?” and a recent effort by Stanford University researchers discovered pro-gun groups increased their political spending “in competitive House districts” following a school shooting.
In “School shootings and the strategic contributions of gun policy PACs in US House elections,” Stanford Law Postdoctoral Fellow Eric Baldwin and law student Takuma Iwasaki found pro-gun group spending increased 31 percent to sympathetic candidates in such districts.
“The American public consistently supports stricter gun laws. We show that the gun lobby is most concerned that this support will translate into federal legislative action when fatal school shootings occur,” the study’s abstract, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reads.
Baldwin, who according to his Stanford bio “is committed to advancing empirical research that informs transformative policy change,” said “Politicians send hopes and prayers without actually doing anything. That is because there is money and money speaks.”
In its report on the study, The Stanford Daily doesn’t mention “gun safety” political action committee spending also increased after school shootings, albeit not as much pro-gun PACs’ (20 percent vs. 31).
The Daily’s report highlights anti-gun activists such as March for Our Lives Executive Director Jaclyn Corin, former high school chapter founder of Students Demand Action Kylie Price, “school safety advocate” Anjali Verma, and Democratic U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut.
Corin, who attended Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida along with now-activist David Hogg, accused the gun lobby of having “a coordinated strategy to outlast public outrage,” and claimed pro-gun groups are “deeply manipulative.”
Price said “I am exhausted…I spent six years doing gun violence prevention advocacy, and I don’t think I’ve seen much change.”
Murphy, “widely recognized as the leading Democrat on gun violence prevention in the Senate,” claimed “the fact that the gun lobby has resorted to pumping propaganda into communities traumatized by gun violence is a huge tell that they know they’re losing.”
The Daily claims it reached out “multiple” times to the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America but did not receive a response.
The study’s abstract concludes by saying “While public opinion should drive policy change, campaign contributions are wielded to blunt electoral responsiveness, providing insight into the inability of Congress to adopt broadly supported gun safety measures.”
But, of course, gun control isn’t the only issue where money serves to “blunt electoral responsiveness.” Currently, the vast majority of the American public wants mandatory voter ID measures in elections, but one of the major parties is adamantly opposed to it.
A large majority of the American public is against eliminating cash bail for people charged with violent crimes, but lawmakers, mainly progressive, push it anyway.
The right to possess a firearm is enshrined in the Constitution via the Second Amendment. It’s seems fairly logical that groups like the NRA, which have a legitimate right to lobby on behalf of their interests, would increase PAC-related measures after emotional events like school shootings to remind the public there are other relevant issues to consider — like stricter enforcement of laws already on the books — before further curbing a constitutional right.
MORE: Sociology prof convicted for smearing fake blood on NRA lobbyist’s home
MORE: Profs hold protests at, vandalize home of NRA lobbyist
