Amid the renewed debate on gun control there have been scattered reports about the gun industry, such as this one and many others like it about how a major venture capital firm that owns the company that made the Bushmaster deployed in Newtown has put its investment up for sale. But I’ve been waiting for a major feature somewhere that really sheds light on the gun industry in America. Who are the leading players in both handguns and long guns? Who are the CEOs, and what do they say about the products they sell?
How much do they really help to fund the NRA and similar anti-gun control groups and how? Are there other blue chip venture firms — run perhaps by people who otherwise proudly grace the financial or even the society pages for their charitable activities — tied up in the industry?
What are their most profitable products? Do the same players sell the armor-piercing bullets and the multi-round magazines now under attack from the gun controllers? How has the recent surge in gun sales and this related equipment (apparently because gun enthusiasts are afraid their right to purchase it is going to be curtailed) boosted their profits? Is the NRA’s “slippery slope” argument that President Obama’s limited proposals are the beginning of a gun confiscation program part of an industry-inspired campaign to boost sales by encouraging a run on all guns before confiscation happens? Can someone find some sources inside the companies to tell us about that or maybe even provide strategy memos?
This Huffington Post article spotlights the National Shooting Sports Foundation (based, ironically, in Newtown) as the industry’s primary trade association. Its 2011 tax return shows no expenses for lobbying but $2.5 million in 2011 for “government relations.” What exactly are its activities in Washington and state capitols? Are there other trade associations or groups that fund the industry’s advocacy in Washington? The foundation doesn’t appear to have given any money to the NRA, but to what extent do the individual companies or perhaps some other industry-related group fund the NRA and through what channels?
This piece, also from the Huffington Post, asserts that “the NRA is primarily a front group for the nation’s gun manufacturers.” But the NRA’s tax return for 2010 (the 2011 return seems long overdue, which is itself an interesting line of inquiry) only lists $58.5 million in “contributions, gifts, grants,” whereas $100.5 million is recorded for “membership dues.” That’s still $50 million that could be from the gun makers, and there’s also $20.9 million in advertising revenue (most of which is presumably for the NRA’s monthly magazine) that probably comes mostly from the industry. But those are simply hints from a two-year-old tax return. It would be great to see a full, detailed picture of who the gun industry is, how much money they make on what, and the extent to which they use that money to hold back gun control.

The country's "most pressing problem" is cutting spending???? Sounds like Steve Brill has drunk the Pete Peterson Kool-Aid. How about getting people back to work and the economy growing? How about climate change? How about climate change? How about controlling overall health care costs and implementing the Affordable Care Act so everyone has health coverage? I'm disappointed to see someone as smart as Brill buying into that bunk.
#1 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Tue 22 Jan 2013 at 01:37 PM
The Republicans want cuts far beyond what a Democrat would find acceptable, so Brill should be insisting that the microphone be stuck in the noses of McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, and friends for an explanation of how they plan to balance the budget and establish the long-term stability of Medicare. It would be politically foolish for the President to do the Republicans' work for them, and even more foolish to open a negotiation by describing the desired end point.
The questions, "what are you going to cut," or "what loopholes are you going to close" should have been asked every time Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan pretended to have a serious plan to balance the budget. I don't catch every one of Brill's "stories I would like to see", so perhaps I missed a call for that one? He's presently calling for its sequel, and while Romney is no longer in the picture Ryan and the other Republican fiscal scolds (pretty much every one of whom voted for two unfunded wars and the unfunded Medicare Part D expansion, as well as Bush's deficit-exploding tax cuts) remains available for questions.
#2 Posted by Aaron, CJR on Tue 22 Jan 2013 at 06:08 PM
Great followup point by Aaron. Thanks for making it. Obama and the Dems have proposed tax increases and spending cuts that would bring the deficit down to about 73% of GDP, which most economists consider sustainable. The question for Republicans and the Beltway media folks in thrall to Pete Peterson is why do we need or want more than that at this time, particularly when we need to stimulate economic growth and bigger cuts threaten to strangle growth?
#3 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Tue 22 Jan 2013 at 07:17 PM