Gun control debate will tell us a lot
The emotional and contentious debate taking place on Capitol Hill concerning new restrictions on the purchase of guns will tell us a lot about Congress and whether it responds to the people or to lobbyists and special interest groups. Polls indicate a majority of Americans favor more gun controls. But members of Congress are face-to-face with one of the heavy hitters of the lobbying community – the National Rifle Association, which has shown little willingness to cooperate with the Obama administration and members of Congress who are seeking ways to control gun violence. Just last week, Wayne LaPierre, CEO and chief lobbyist for the NRA, told a congressional committee that his organization is opposed to universal background checks on persons purchasing a gun.
He said, “My problem with background checks is you’re never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks. None of it makes sense in the real world.” Maybe so, Mr. LaPierre, but none of the persons who committed the recent mass murders were known criminals.
Mr. LaPierre may be preaching to the choir when he testifies before Congress. Since 1998, the NRA has spent more than $100 million on incumbents and candidates at the local, state and federal levels, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog organization. About 83 percent of those contributions went to Republicans. Yes, the NRA does have some staunch supporters among the 17 percent of Democrats as well.
A little more history here. In 1998, when the Center for Responsive Politics started keeping records, there were 10,408 lobbyists currying the favor of members of Congress. How did they do it? With money, of course – to the tune of $1.44 billion dollars.
In 2012, there were 12,374 lobbyists walking the halls of Congress, and they paid out $3.28 billion in contributions. So the question is: Who do you think members of Congress are listening to?
Perhaps it has gotten so bad and Congress is so bought and paid for that those average citizens are starting to take note. A recent Rasmussen survey revealed that just 32 percent of likely voters now feel their local congressional representative deserves to be re-elected. In the 2012 elections, 90 percent of incumbent congressmen who ran for re-election won. In the past, 98 percent of incumbents could expect to be re-elected. Hopefully, that’s a trend. Not only that, the Rasmussen survey came up with only nine percent of respondents who had a positive opinion about the job Congress is doing today. Twenty-nine percent gave Congress a fair rating, and 64 percent said it was doing a poor job. And, nally, 53 percent said they think neither party represents the American people.
As an example, let’s look at Louisiana’s U.S. House delegation and see how much money they have received from Political Action Committees (PACs), special interest groups and, of course, the NRA.
First, the ve Republicans: • U.S. Rep. Rodney Alexander has represented the Fifth Congressional District since 2002. During his career in Congress, he has had contributions totaling more than $7 million. Of that amount, nearly $3 million came from PACs. The NRA has given Alexander $16,450.
• U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy has represented the Sixth Congressional District since 2008. He has had contributions totaling more than $4.6 million, of which $1.4 million came from PACs. Cassidy has received $5,500 from the NRA.
• U.S. Rep. John Fleming has represented the Fourth Congressional District since 2008. He has had total contributions of $4.8 million of which $950,000 came from PACs. The NRA has given Fleming $5,000.
• U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise has represented the First Congressional District since 2008. He has had total contributions of $4.7 million, of which $1.6 million came from PACs. Contributions from the NRA totaled $6,500.
• U.S. Rep. Charles Boustany has represented the Seventh District, now the Third District, since 2004. He has had total contributions of $12 million, of which $5.5 million came from PACs. He has received $10,500 from the NRA.
• The lone Democrat, U.S. Rep. Cedric Richmond, has represented the Second Congressional District since 2010. He has had contributions of $2.5 million of which $1 million came from PACs. He has received no money from the NRA.
The U.S. Senate is a more expensive political ball game. Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, who was rst elected in 1996, has had total contributions of $26.6 million, of which $8 million came from PACs. She has not received any money from the NRA. Republican U.S. Sen. David Vitter, rst elected in 2004, has had contributions of $24.6 million, of which $5 million came from PACs. He has received $12,900 from the NRA. So there you have it – some idea of what a big money game it is in our nation’s capital. Members of Congress will insist that campaign contributions from PACs and special interest groups do not in uence their votes on legislation. But one thing is for sure – campaign nancing is out of control at all levels of government. But I would not hold my breath if you are waiting for incumbents to put limits on themselves.
Lou Gehrig Burnett, an award-winning journalist, has been involved with politics for 44 years and was a congressional aide in Washington, D.C., for 27 years. He also served as executive assistant to former Shreveport Mayor Bo Williams. Burnett is the publisher of the weekly “FaxNet Update” and can be reached at 861-0552 or louburnett@comcast.net.
