Today, U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn) released a report on the National Rifle Association's (NRA) ineffective political spending in the 2012 election. The report, which was developed using fundraising data from 16 contested 2012 U.S. Senate campaigns and the 2012 Presidential campaign, reveals that the NRA actually loses more races than it wins, and disproportionately spends money against Democrats. In the 2012 general election, the vast majority of U.S. Senate candidates who were backed by the NRA lost their elections, as did Mitt Romney, the NRA backed nominee for president. Additionally, candidates who were directly opposed by the NRA actually won more often than not. The report also reveals that nearly 75 percent of the total funds the NRA spent in the 2012 election cycle were spent against Democrats who support anti-gun violence measures such as background checks - a measure also supported by the majority of NRA members.
Out of the 16 contested 2012 U.S. Senate campaigns, the NRA lost 13 races. In seven of these races, the NRA spent money to support Republicans and oppose Democrats, but out of these seven, only one NRA backed candidate won. In the other nine races, the NRA spent money for or against only one candidate. Out of these nine races, the NRA lost seven. Also, in the 2012 Presidential campaign, the NRA spent nearly 5 times as much against President Obama than it did in support of Mitt Romney, only to see President Obama ultimately win the election.
"The NRA's response to the tragic Sandy Hook shooting last month has been absolutely revolting and tone-deaf. It's also been out of step with its own members, many of whom support common-sense anti-gun violence measures like universal background checks," said Murphy. "This report starts to debunk the myth that if you cross the NRA, you have a political price to pay. We have to help Members of Congress understand that the NRA just isn't what it used to be."