I’ve been involved with politics all my life, served as Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana for twelve years, been the Republican nominee for United States Senator in Indiana, and now, after four months as head of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, I’m at a loss why some pundits and elected officials consider common sense measures to reduce gun violence as “wedge issues” too controversial to be considered by the new Congress.

We’re not talking about banning or confiscating guns that people buy and own for hunting, collecting, or personal protection. The issue isn’t whether someone is “pro-gun” or “anti-gun” but why there is a reluctance from some of our elected officials to take moderate steps that would make our homes and neighborhoods safer.

The following points should satisfy any political concerns that are out there:

1. Polls show consistently that the American people strongly support common sense restrictions on gun purchases. There is a consensus that Brady background checks, prohibitions against “straw purchases,” limits on bulk sales, strong enforcement of gun laws (including those applicable to gun dealers), and restrictions on certain types of military-style weapons and ammunition makes sense and would help promote public safety.
2. The political clout of the gun lobby has been overblown. In the 2006 campaigns where the Brady Campaign and the NRA endorsed competing candidates, the NRA lost 80%, including four of four U.S. Senate races and five of five Governor races. The NRA spent over 2.1 million dollars (80% of their independent expenditures) on losing campaigns. Five of their six top-funded U.S. Senate candidates all lost. When reviewing their endorsed or A rated candidates, the NRA lost with 109 U.S. House candidates and 18 U.S. Senate candidates. On the other hand, the Brady Campaign was successful in over 96% of the races around the country where it made an endorsement. In numerous races, pro-active support for common sense gun violence protection measures helped a candidate win. I know of no candidate whose support for this harmed their efforts.
3. Increasing gun violence is a concern to voters across the country. As Charlie Cook pointed out in his “Cook Political Report” column on October 3, 2006, “the tragic news” of the school shootings in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania and elsewhere “certainly isn’t going to help Republicans’ standing among many moderate and independent suburban voters.” Whether evaluating steps meant to keep us safe from threats from abroad, or threats at home, voters want realistic, pragmatic responses, not theoretical stances that either have no or even negative effect. More guns are likely to make a home, a state, or a country more dangerous, not more safe.

The new Congress could send the public a positive message of its concern for safer communities by taking common sense steps like eliminating current restrictions on publicizing data about the source of guns used in crimes, strengthening the enforcement powers of law enforcement agencies including the ATF, making it harder for criminals and terrorists to buy guns by requiring background checks for all gun sales, and restricting sales of military style weapons and the ammunition that’s used in those weapons. Steps like this help make us safer and will score political points for those who support them.

As more figures come in, the extent of the NRA’s campaign losses becomes even clearer. They spent over 2.1 million dollars in independent expenditures in 51 federal campaigns during the 2006 election cycle according to data reported so far to the Federal Election Commission. These expenditures made the NRA seventh on the FEC’s list of non-party related Political Action Committees.

If you add the money they spent in the races for Governor in Colorado and Wisconsin, their total independent expenditures came to nearly 2.6 million dollars.

So what kind of “bang” did the NRA get for these bucks?:

• 83 percent of the money went to losing campaigns.
• 88 percent of the money spent on U.S. Senate campaigns went to losers
• In the Colorado (an open seat in, yes, a western Rocky Mountain state) and Wisconsin (site of the NRA National convention this year) races for Governor, the NRA spent 442,000 dollars and lost both races soundly.
• Over 2.1 million dollars was spent on 14 statewide races (for Senator or Governor) and the NRA still lost nearly 80 percent of those races.
• In the 11 races where the NRA advertised heavily on TV, radio and in newspapers, they helped only two candidates win.
• In most of these races where the NRA lost, there was a clear public difference between the competing candidates on the issue of common sense gun violence prevention measures, a difference that hurt the NRA-backed candidates in the polls.

The challenge now is for our elected officials to realize that
supporting things like Brady background checks to keep criminals and
terrorists from buying guns from legitimate sources, and enforcing the
laws applicable to gun dealers to make sure they don’t contribute to
the market in illegal guns by allowing straw purchases, makes good
sense from a political as well a policy perspective.

The gun lobby’s spin operation in the wake of its sizable defeats last Tuesday is literally unbelievable. How, for example, can George Will say during the Sunday morning roundtable discussion on the Stephanopoulos show that the NRA was a “winner” when they lost over 82 percent of the 46 called races where their endorsed candidates ran against candidates endorsed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence?

The NRA spent over 1.7 million dollars (80 percent of their independent expenditures) on losing campaigns this year. The NRA’s success rate in the U.S. Senate was only 25 percent and in the U.S. House (with some races still undecided) only 42 percent.

Arguments that some of the new winners are “pro-gun” (see my letter to the New York Times from Saturday that questions the use of this term) begs the question why the NRA spent so much money the last few weeks trying to defeat candidates like Jim Webb and Bob Casey.

The Brady Campaign endorsed candidates in 345 races across the country and, with 4 races still in doubt, has won over 96 percent of the decided contests. Supporting common sense gun violence prevention measures helped elect candidates at all levels across the country on Tuesday. I know of no candidates where this support caused them to lose.

The lesson to be learned from this election is that trying to reduce gun violence through common sense, moderate, approaches like having more gun sales covered by Brady background checks, restricting bulk sales of handguns, and strengthening law enforcement’s ability to make sure that the laws on the books are followed, helps, not hurts, candidates in all parts of the country.

Americans want positive reality-based results - not theoretical spin - on all sorts of issues from what will make us safe in the world as well as at home.

After having been born to a politically active Republican three weeks after Dewey thought he beat Truman, I’ve heard about or followed directly most of the fifteen “off-year” elections that have occurred in my lifetime, but yesterday I looked at the results from a different perspective – from my office overlooking Franklin Square in downtown DC as the new (4 months on the job tomorrow) head of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Here are some random election observations (both related to the Brady Campaign and more general):

1. Candidates supporting a common sense approach to gun violence prevention did very well. In races where the Brady Campaign endorsed candidates went head-to-head with competing candidates endorsed by the NRA, Brady won 5 of 5 Governorships (Patrick in MA, O’Malley in MD, Rendell in PA, Doyle in WI, and Blagojevich in IL) and 4 of 4 U.S. Senate seats (Cardin in MD, Cantwell in WA, Stabenow in MI, and Nelson in FL). Candidates endorsed by the Brady Campaign won over 95% of their races. It appears that candidates endorsed as “A” rated by the NRA lost in 109 U.S. House races and 18 U.S. Senate Races.
At least four of six U.S. Senate candidates that the NRA spent more than $1 million in total trying to re-elect went down to defeat, and the other two are losing. On the other hand, supporters of common sense gun laws in the Senate, like Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Edward Kennedy, Deborah Stabenow and Richard Lugar were reelected handily.

In multiple key battles for Congressional seats supporters of tougher gun laws won, including Pennsylvania’s Joe Sestak, Ohio’s Betty Sutton and Colorado’s Ed Perlmutter. “I’m so grateful to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence for supporting me early on,” Perlmutter said. “Not only did they help me win my primary, they’ve helped bring the issue of gun violence front and center in Colorado’s 7th district.”
The gun lobby lost key Gubernatorial fights where the candidates waged brutal policy battles publicly over guns in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. It lost Governors’ mansions in the other states as well, including Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, and Colorado, where victors Deval Patrick, Martin O’Malley, Eliot Spitzer and Bill Ritter proudly accepted the Brady Campaign endorsement. Keep checking our web page for additional details.

2. There seems to be a two-election limit on how long American voters will support U.S. involvement in a war that brings significant levels of deaths and casualties. The Civil War was still going on in 1862 and 1864 but was over by 1866. Our involvement in World War I started after 1916 and ended shortly after the 1918 elections. World War II was going on during the 1942 and 1944 elections but was over by 1946. Our presence in Korea began in June 1950, continued in 1952, but was over shortly after Eisenhower’s election as President that year. Only Vietnam (1964, 1966, 1968, 1970, and 1972) and now Afghanistan/Iraq (2002, 2004, 2006) have gone on more than two elections. Once Vietnam hit the third election (1968), LBJ withdrew and party control of the Presidency switched. By the third election during the Vietnam War with a Republican President (1974), voters were clearly dissatisfied with the course of the war.

3. The 2006 elections have many making comparisons to 1994 or the off-year elections in the 1980s, but they also remind me a lot of 1970. Long-time incumbent Republicans in Congress like E. Ross Adair in Fort Wayne, Indiana were defeated that year. U.S. Senate races like Vance Hartke’s win in Indiana were cliffhangers. Connecticut had a three-way race for the U.S. Senate, with the incumbent Democrat (Tom Dodd) running as an independent. Another northeastern state elected a third-party candidate to the U.S. Senate (Jim Buckley in New York). Anti-war feelings played a major role that year and the political parties were going through transitions that left both the parties and the electoral map in transition for years to come. 2006 may come to be seen as a similar year for redefining the two major parties and their areas of influence.

4. Finally, on a lighter note, did anybody notice how the CNN commentators last night chose their ties? Bill Bennett and J.C. Watts both wore red ties and James Carville and Paul Begala both wore blue. Who says showing your party/school/gang loyalty is out of style?

I’ll add more thoughts after we have a little more time to reflect on this election and the consequences. Your comments and observations are welcome.