I totally support this type of information being pushed far and wide.

I do wonder though, were there any opponents between #1 and #2 or even between #2 and #3 that were successful with NRA backing. There are some big gaps in there. Sure they had some high profile defeats (Obama) but that doesn't mean they can't make a case that right wing candidates need their money like oxygen.

Gun nuts losing money . . . on the one hand, good news! On the other, desperate people (with guns) do desperate things.

@2 they were already going to do that anyway - Gun nuts are ... Nuts.

Congress wasn't able to pass any gun reform laws after the Sandy Hook massacre so I cannot say that the NRA has no political clout.

Wow, Charles, it's not even noon yet and you've already started the week with two anti-gun posts, both of which are remarkably irrelevant drivel.

It's become clear that your gun fetish is every bit as overwhelming as Goldy's. You seem to spend more time thinking about guns than any 'gun nut' I know.

Perhaps you should just stick with racist grocery bags and Amanda Knox.

@7

What is there to 'contribute' to a stale non-story from 2012?

Once again, when Charles has nothing to say about guns, he pulls something out of his ass. What exactly was his contribution here?

Well, @8 he certainly got your panties twisted - enough to kvetch about the "irrelevance" of his post in TWO separate comments - so at least give him credit for providing you an opportunity to perform some sort of ersatz civic duty today in lieu of something more concretely constructive.

@8, 9

My panties aren't in any sort of twist. I merely find it comical that, in the absence of actual news, Charles' irrational hatred of guns causes him to regularly recycle stories that are years old.

I figure that in order for a story to be newsworthy it should be, you know... new.

Regarding personal insults, I'm not sure where I insulted him. He did, in fact, recently write a story a about grocery bag racism. He does have an obsession with Amanda Knox and he did pull the above gun story out of his ass... from two years ago.

This is extremely stupid. You evaluate an interest group's effectiveness not by their ability to influence elections, but to influence policy. NRA campaign spending's primary effect is too intimidate other legislators who believe, sometimes accurately, that they might be harmed by future NRA spending. Evaluating the NRA by their ability to influence the policy process, they're incredibly effective.

Charles holds two incompatible concepts in his head.
a. The NRA has overwhelming influence.
b. The NRA has almost no influence.