(2006-12-20) This month we make good on our promise to follow last month's election summary with a study of how various gun groups weighed into the campaigns. State law required candidates and committees to file detailed reports at the end of November, so we have now had a chance to scan the documents and tally numbers, which are summarized below.
Be sure you understand what these figures mean. These data are based on reports filed at State Administration Board of Election Laws, and totals here say how much money candidates reported was donated to them. Reports are a moving target, since officials are constantly updating records, correcting errors in data entry, and hunting misfiled or late reports. (Above all, keep in mind that computers are involved, so everything is suspect!) If SABEL's reports change, then our tally changes too.
Note what SABEL reports do not reflect: independent effort (i.e., political expense other than direct donation to a politician) by a group that is not a registered political action committee. Only PACs must publicly report independent expenditures. Our media watchers around the state forward gun-related ads when they see them, and it's certainly possible that we miss tracking some, but it appears that gun clubs as a whole had almost no contact with voters outside of club rosters. (That is not a damning criticism. Most clubs' tax status precludes them from getting deeply involved in politics, and state law limits how much a club may do without having to register. Of clubs able to get involved, we know some recommended candidates to members via a newsletter or web site, and a few spent a couple bucks doing so. Nevertheless, the generalization remains true, and only MPFO – a PAC set up for this purpose – made significant effort to broadly reach gun owners and help them vote like gun people .)
Finally, SABEL reports won't reflect bundled checks. This is the practice of having several individual donors each write a personal check to some candidate, and then having one person deliver the ‘bundle' all at once. This helps the person carrying the checks gain influence with the candidate who cashes them, but that's about all. The candidate's report will only list individual donors. (This also means the group doesn't get ‘credit' for it when pundits do post-election tallies, and if the candidate loses, it looks to the rest of the world like the group wasn't even in the game.)
Allegany-Garrett Sportsman's Association $1,645 reported by candidates in (chiefly) General Assembly races. The pattern of donations reflects a strong and sensible local effort to take care of business at home. (Good job! The state should be so lucky as to have such efforts in each of the localities.)
Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore $7,035 in donations reported by candidates. Of that total, $3,125 was given in this calendar year, almost exclusively to GOP candidates. ($450 went to two pro-gun Democrats, late in the game.) AGC is a ‘club of clubs' but its pattern of donations does not seem to reflect an interest in taking care of candidates local to where its clubs come from. AGC did publish voting information for clubs to relay to their members; some did, some didn't, so the reach of its voting guide is unclear. We are unaware of any AGC campaign efforts or expenditures to reach voters outside its clubs' rosters.
Baltimore County Game & Fish Protective Association $1,250 in donations reported by candidates, exclusively to local races having a direct impact on the club. Another solid effort and to the right places!
Beretta Via its registered PAC, the company made $20,325 in donations to candidates, with no expenses listed for independent outreach. The pattern of investments correctly reflects the company's promotion of business interests. In the past (as we have reported) Beretta's giving often conflicted with those of us having liberty interests; happily, this term these interests are more in line with one another. PAC funds came almost exclusively from a handful of Beretta's sister companies, and it consequently had no overhead. In addition, one of the sister companies, Benelli , donated $4,000 directly to a candidate, apart from the PAC.
Brady Campaign $8,250 in donations to only four candidates. Half of this sum went to Jim Rosapepe and almost all of it was given late enough in the game that it can't be said that their cash influenced much, however, independent expenses of at least that much were clearly invested in anti-gun mail to voters in one district. In addition, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence gave $750 to only one candidate, Neil Quinter. That won't buy a lot of influence, since MPFO helped take Quinter out. (Liberal legislators really ought to ask themselves why it is that so many of them carry the Brady water for free …)
Gunowners of America $125 to the Montgomery County GOP Central Committee. In August, GOA director Larry Pratt agreed to copy campaign material from Don Dwyer onto GOA letterhead, which was published as an award for Dwyer. Had Pratt actually set foot in Annapolis before agreeing to do a political favor for GOP buds, he might have known Dwyer is famous among gun owners for his role in killing the proposed repeal of ballistic fingerprinting. Pratt's gaffe spotlighted GOA's lack of involvement in MD affairs. GOA apparently published no list, rating or endorsement of General Assembly candidates, and, except for fund raising letters it always mails, sent little into the state. GOA will have commensurate influence this term.
Marylanders for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership this term has raised $107,410 (for the most part, one five dollar raffle ticket at a time!) of which $50,905 was directly donated to the campaigns of pro-gun candidates and $40,728.27 was spent on MPFO's independent campaign effort (e.g., direct mail, radio and other media to reach voting gunowners) The balance of about $14,000 went to fundraising expenses (purchase of raffle prizes.) The PAC reported $1,629.75 of in-kind donations (i.e., non-monetary donation of prizes or services.) [You read last month about MPFO's successful track record!]
Maryland Sportsmen Association $1,700 reported by a handful of candidates as having come from either MSA or its PAC of the same name. Much of this was recorded in November, days before the election, so it isn't clear what influence MSA donations had on outcomes. (Inexplicably, MSA reports $439.87 in bank fees and office expenses.)
Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association $6,205 in donations reported by candidates. While MSRPA was obviously well-intentioned (and did right by supporting NRA positions during sessions) it's hard to make a case that it influenced much in elections. It gave $1,000 of its total to Joe Vallario the week after he won his race, and $4,000 to John Giannetti the day after he lost his primary. Those would have been good choices months earlier, but usually to influence an election we get involved before the election. (The latter was surely useful to Giannetti in his unexpected bid in the General, which he launched the following week.) $350 went to a candidate who ran in neither the recent nor previous election. (Usually to influence an election we help a candidate who is actually in the election.) Apparently MSRPA made no effort to contact members about the election.
National Rifle Association $9500 in donations reported by candidates, via the NRA Political Victory Fund (PVF). Because it has no PAC registered in the state, the PVF is subject to the same spending caps as any other ordinary in-state group, therefore its donations – near the $10,000 limit – reflect a serious investment in the state. While it is not known to have made any independent effort to campaign outside its organization, NRA's cost of sending postcards surely dwarfed what it spent on direct donations to candidates, and its reach to members was probably on a par with Tripwire's reach to its subscribers. NRA was effective in focusing on key districts where it could make a difference – and did. Except for a very few instances in which NRA headquarters overrode the ILA State & Local Office's handling of a race for reasons having nothing to do with guns (more on that next month), we give the organization high marks.
National Shooting Sports Foundation $5,000 reported by one candidate. NSSF advocates the business interests of the firearms industry, and its single investment in the state reflects a sensible choice.
Stoney Creek Fishing and Hunting Club of Pasadena $11,045 in donations reported by candidates. Its pattern of donations evidences a general interest in maintaining presence in races local to its Anne Arundel county facility. Taking care of business close to home is always in order, and the club has clearly made a strong impact – possibly too strong. If the SABEL numbers are accurate as reported, then the club blew past state caps on spending, and quick repairs are in order. Looking at Stoney Creek's record does beg some headscratching, however. For example, historically the club has been a strong backer of local incumbent Joan Cadden, a Delegate who has been very good for the club. Yet this election the club's political officer, Roy Tarbutton, was openly active in helping Don Dwyer's effort, which resulted in Dywer (a Republican) knocking out Cadden (a Democrat) in the General election. (Be sure you understand that: Stoney Creek's people helped take out Cadden, the House's chief sponsor of ballistic fingerprint repeal, in order to elect Dwyer, the candidate chiefly responsible for killing ballistic fingerprint repeal.) You may recognize Tarbutton as an Ehrlich administration appointee to the Handgun Permit Review Board.
The rest A handful of gun store owners are on record with donations, as are a few smaller clubs. Though on a more modest scale than above, most seem to reflect a sincere interest in taking care of liberty interests close to home. We applaud the efforts.