NRA gave more than $210,000 to Pa. Congress members, records show |

NRA gave more than $210,000 to Pa. Congress members, records show

Getty Images
Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association Wayne LaPierre walks on stage prior to his remarks during the Conservative Political Action Conference at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center February 24, 2017 in National Harbor, Maryland.

The National Rifle Association, under heavy fire on social media following the Parkland, Fla., school massacre, has spent more than $210,000 to support members of Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation over the past two decades, campaign finance records show.

The money, doled out as campaign contributions directly to candidates, is just a small piece of the pie in the post-Citizens United world where super PACs representing corporations, nonprofit organizations and labor unions can spend millions more to underwrite independent, issue-oriented communications to support their favorites.

Gun control advocates, who often are outspent by as much as 10-1 on the national stage, say it would be a mistake to underestimate the power of the NRA and other gun rights groups.

“It’s hard to track all of the money because it doesn’t go directly to the candidates. And then the NRA can always threaten to back a primary candidate against members who step out of line,” said Shira Goodman of

The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that tracks money in federal elections, totaled contributions from various gun rights organizations and super PACS that support their work and found gun rights groups outspent gun control groups by $54,874,552 to $2,950,801 in 2016.

The NRA, the nation’s leading gun rights advocate, did not immediately return a call for comment Thursday. The organization typically urges restraint in Washington when calls for gun control escalate after mass shootings.

But the tide may be turning.

Even as gun rights money continued to flow to Washington on Thursday, #GunControlNow was trending on Twitter with tens of thousands of tweets calling for action. And Facebook postings were naming names and asking why members of Congress are still taking money from gun rights groups.

Pennsylvania’s junior senator, Republican Patrick Toomey, is among those who sampled the water for change in 2013 after the Sandy Hook massacre when he and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., sponsored the unsuccessful Manchin-Toomey amendment to expand background checks on gun transactions to internet and gun shows.

Toomey, who served in the House from 1999-2005 prior to his 2010 election to the Senate, reaped nearly $40,000 in NRA contributions between 1998 and 2010. He has not received anything from the organization since then.

Asked about his views on gun legislation yesterday, Toomey said he hasn’t given up on it.

“I am committed to improving our federal background check system, which is why my staff and I will continue to reach out to senators on both sides of the aisle to see where progress can be made. I am also open to new legislation establishing stricter penalties for people who steal or illegally possess firearms,” he wrote in an email.

Five of six Pennsylvania congressmen who are leaving office — Republicans Charlie Dent, Bill Shuster, Patrick Meehan, Lou Barletta and Tim Murphy — all received direct contributions from the NRA.

The organization already has endorsed Rick Saccone, R-Elizabeth, a state lawmaker seeking to succeed Murphy. But it was unclear whether he had received any direct contributions from the organization.

Incumbent U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, who is seeking a ninth term this year, is among those who have never received the NRA’s backing. In 2016, Doyle led a sit-in on the House floor, calling for a vote that would ban anyone on the terrorist watch list from purchasing a gun.

On Thursday, a frustrated Doyle tweeted:

“What’s it going to take? No more moments of silence. Action.”

Like Doyle, Pennsylvania’s senior senator, Democrat Bob Casey, has never profited from the NRA’s largesse as a senator. Today, gun control advocates have a kindred spirit in Casey, who became an ardent supporter of gun control legislation after the Sandy Hook massacre.

Back at the offices of CeaseFirePA, Goodman said the phones have been ringing nonstop since word of the Parkland School shootings broke Wednesday.

“We’re getting calls for people who are horrified, people who we’ve never heard from before are calling. They want to know what they should be doing and who they should be calling. ‘Eighteen shootings on schools grounds by Feb. 14 is outrageous,’ that’s what we’re hearing,” Goodman said.

Debra Erdley is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach her at 412-320-7996 or [email protected] or via Twitter @deberdley_trib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.