The National Rifle Association's excessive influence on federal legislation

Public Policy

Do some interest groups have too much power when it comes to passing legislation, influencing federal policy, and blocking legislation? This is a key question for this paper. The answer is yes, some interest groups (also called "special interest groups") do wield too much influence. Although the practices of groups like the NRA may technically be legal, they are not always fair, ethical, or helpful for most Americans. This paper will point to information that shows the different types of interest groups and their goals.

Types of Interest Groups

The Britannica Encyclopedia refers to interest groups as "pressure groups" or "special interest groups." Very simply the great majority of groups simply seek to influence public policy, and their ability to sway the legislative process depends on their savvy, their numbers, their funding and the impact of what they are advocating.

The way Britannica breaks down the groups begins with "economic interest groups." These economic interest groups are "most prominent in all countries"; there are business groups, labor groups, farm groups, and they all seek addition funding in some context.

There are professional "cause" groups (which include churches, religious organizations, veterans' groups, groups supporting the elderly, and groups supporting people with disabilities). What they have in common is they all are seeking to advocate for some cause, be it veterans hoping for better care through the Veterans Administration or evangelical church groups seeking an end to abortion (Britannica).

Or the AARP, which advocates for measures that help older people. The AARP also advocates for healthcare policies and social justice that is not limited to only older people. On its website the AARP advocates for fairness for "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Americans" (AARP). The AARP also advocates for fairness in estate and inheritance taxes: these taxes "…should effect only the largest transfers, and surviving spouses, domestic partners, and family farms and businesses should be protected from excessive burdens" (AARP). The AARP also urges "freedom from discrimination" no matter the age, gender, race, ethnicity, disability, religion, national origin "or sexual orientation" of the person (AARP).

There are also professional cause groups like The American Medical Association (AMA), The Screen Actors Guild, and the American Bar Association -- the three "most influential associations in America" -- that give money to candidates that may support issues important to them (Ragone, 2011).

Public interest groups seek to put forward environmental protection, consumer rights or human rights; they include the Sierra Club, Amnesty International, and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines) (Britannica). There are also private and public groups that push for "institutional interests"; think tanks are examples of institution interest groups, according to the Britannica.

The NRA's Abusive Power

How powerful is the National Rifle Association? There are countless examples in which the NRA put political pressure on elected officials to vote a certain way or block a certain confirmation or legislation that was up for a vote. One example is the nomination of Vivek Murthy to serve as U.S. Surgeon General by the Obama Administration. Because Murthy had been quoted as saying that gun violence was "a health care issue," the NRA heavily lobbied the Senate and the House not to confirm him. The NRA had its way for a year and a half; in other words, legislators' fears that the NRA would sponsor attack ads in their next election kept the Surgeon General office vacant for 18 months. But he was finally confirmed as Surgeon General in December, 2014. The NRA acts as a bully, pushing its agenda by threatening elected officials to vote or not vote the way the NRA wants them to.

Another example of the NRA's influence -- which defied the will of a great majority of Americans -- was the NRA's lobbying effort that led to a filibuster of legislation that would have required people who bought firearms at gun shows to go through background checks, just like they now do at legitimate gun shops.

Over 90% of Americans polled by various legitimate polling groups clearly showed that citizens agreed that requiring background checks at gun shows was a good idea, and they agreed that it was reasonable to have sellers at gun shows obtain the same kind of licenses as licensed dealers in legitimate gun shops. The NRA falsely claimed that the legislation would "criminalize the private transfer of firearms through an expansion of background checks," which one of the sponsors of the Bill, an NRA member, Senator Joe Manchin, said was "a lie" (Robertson, 2013).

It should be noted that the NRA has over the years propagandized its members (and others) to believe that the government is trying to negate the Second Amendment by requiring background checks so that it can create a database and take those weapons away at some point. That is pure paranoia, but it has been an effective albeit deceptive tool for the NRA.