Tvandermyde Posted May 22, 2009 at 03:14 PM Posted May 22, 2009 at 03:14 PM The other side has telegraphed their moves with the column below. It's not earth shattering but it confirms everything we have heard an seen over the last two years. they are p***** that we have made inroads to the black caucus and they have not been able to win votes. After getting beat this year they ain't happy and are looking to the 2010 elelctions to send a message. game on todd ICHV Legislative Update May 20, 2009 Between 2000 and 2008, it was quite obvious that nothing, or very little, would get done on gun violence prevention issues on the federal level. That is when the Brady Campaign decided to embrace a state-based strategy, and focus on impacting this issue in a select number of states. I am not talking about a twenty to fifty state strategy – but a five to ten state strategy. We believe that if we can get our issue out there in a handful of states that are geographically dispersed, then we can change the dynamic on gun violence prevention. This is a strategy not only designed to improve a state’s firearm or gun violence prevention laws, but to show the public that this movement is starting to go in the right direction. Illinois fits well into this strategy. A lot of times, media will say this is a “bicoastal” issue. It’s true that we have dedicated advocates in California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland and Massachusetts. However, we also need states in the Midwest, the Plains, and in the South. In the Midwest, we are working in Wisconsin and Minnesota as well as Illinois. Patience a Key In this movement, we have to show patience. Just because there was a horrible massacre at Virginia Tech, that doesn’t mean the next year there will new legislation in Virginia. It is almost always going to take a few legislative sessions to break through. For example, some people will say that California was always pro gun control. However, the NRA had a good grip on California politicians in the 1980’s and 1990’s. It wasn’t until the gun violence prevention movement held people accountable on their votes that change began to happen. We learned that we had to target key districts. Either legislators in those districts voted on our side – or we had to try to remove them from office. Still, today, there is a perception out there than the gun lobby is really responsible for what happens in elections. Let’s be clear on this point, however: elected officials are rarely thrown out of office because they oppose policies supported by the pro-gun lobby. Need for Comprehensive Strategy To build a comprehensive strategy on this issue, you have to build strong coalitions while also using strong legislative and electoral strategies. Working on the state legislative side is an efficient use of resources. For a few thousand dollars and earned media (favorable publicity gained through promotional efforts other than advertising), you can affect specific races. That’s what we did in California. Illinois was selected to be part of this strategy because of the strength of organizations and advocacy in the state. The electoral strategy in Illinois is exactly what we did in California. We know it works. We are raising money in Illinois that is specifically earmarked to hold people accountable. We have a comprehensive strategy that involves raising funds, getting our message out on the phone and through the mail, and working in conjunction with other interested parties. What else does this strategy involve? We call it the concentric circle strategy. First, you want to make sure that all of your urban legislators are voting with you – you start with the areas that are most affected. In Illinois, that means asking if all Chicago legislators are on our side. If not, we have to take care of that. The point is, get your areas of strength locked up. Then, move into the ring of suburbs that border Chicago. Then you go to the next “ring.” One of the things our movement has done well is educate policymakers on issues. But one of the things it has not done well – but is doing better now -- is think politically. What we have to do is start making legislators fear that we may have to come after them. We know, for example, that if you are voting against us in the Chicago suburbs, defeat must happen. If not the first time, then by the third or fourth. When do we know a legislator is concerned? I like to see what a legislator’s reaction is to our pressure and lobbying. If they react negatively, we know they are on the run. In Illinois, it’s important to realize that the public is on our side. In the last few years, Illinois voters were polled on specific issues, like universal background checks, on a statewide basis and also in specific legislative districts. The survey results were off the charts in their support for gun violence prevention policies. Surveys, however, were not just used to say “this is popular” – but that this is a good political deal for legislators as well if they want to be re-elected. Our work, however, is not just about supporting candidates who agree with our position. We also want to identify leadership on the state level who can be more outspoken on this issue. That way, it not only becomes a political issue for a candidate, but can impact the party apparatus on gun violence prevention issues. Meanwhile, another group to target is political consultants. We try to get them to go from telling candidates “Don’t worry” to the point where they say “Be careful.” As we look to the future, we know we have to hold people accountable. If we don’t, we are not going to get what we need. The good news is that, in the end, our commitment to gun violence prevention is growing. We have made a pact, and we’re not going to go away. Brian Malte is the State Legislation and Politics Director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
GarandFan Posted May 22, 2009 at 05:36 PM Posted May 22, 2009 at 05:36 PM Yeah ... it confirms to my understanding too. It seems that last time they targeted suburban Rep. Dennis Reboletti extremely hard, including smears and etc. But it seems that he didn't flinch and in fact seemed to me more outspoken in favor of 2A issues than ever before. A friend showed me a recent letter from Reboletti, asking various policy questions. IIRC, one of the questions was "do you support efforts next session that will allow law-abiding Illinoisans a license to carry a gun for self-defense?" I think things are on the move, and if Todd's assessment of the ICHV et al is correct, now is the time to stomp them, including getting more allies in the legislature.
45superman Posted May 22, 2009 at 07:49 PM Posted May 22, 2009 at 07:49 PM Let's play "Bait the Brady Bunch"! Between 2000 and 2008, it was quite obvious that nothing, or very little, would get done on gun violence prevention issues on the federal level.So, Brian, now that it's 2009, and you have huge Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress, and a historically rabidly anti-gun president, vice president, and cabinet, what changes do you see--changes beyond, that is, the legalization of National Park Carry (the reversal, in other words, of damage to gun rights done by the Reagan administration)? That is when the Brady Campaign decided to embrace a state-based strategy, and focus on impacting this issue in a select number of states. I am not talking about a twenty to fifty state strategy – but a five to ten state strategy. We believe that if we can get our issue out there in a handful of states that are geographically dispersed, then we can change the dynamic on gun violence prevention. This is a strategy not only designed to improve a state’s firearm or gun violence prevention laws, but to show the public that this movement is starting to go in the right direction. Illinois fits well into this strategy. A lot of times, media will say this is a “bicoastal” issue. It’s true that we have dedicated advocates in California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland and Massachusetts. However, we also need states in the Midwest, the Plains, and in the South. In the Midwest, we are working in Wisconsin and Minnesota as well as Illinois. So your "strategy" is to focus on 8 states that have long been bastions of restrictive gun laws--very ambitious of you. One of the things our movement has done well is educate policymakers on issues. But one of the things it has not done well – but is doing better now -- is think politically. What we have to do is start making legislators fear that we may have to come after them. We know, for example, that if you are voting against us in the Chicago suburbs, defeat must happen. If not the first time, then by the third or fourth. Basically you're saying "Vote against us in the Chicago burbs--another traditional strength for us, and we might get you knocked out of office within 3 or 4 election cycles." Very intimidating.
Jeff Johnson Posted May 22, 2009 at 08:02 PM Posted May 22, 2009 at 08:02 PM sounds to me like what they are really doing is RAISING MONEY and desperately holding on to any political ground they can in the states where they have been most successful. They are really about raising money and gun-control ("violence prevention") is just the flag they waive to get it. JMO but I think their support base is slowly eroding and they know it.
Topper Posted May 22, 2009 at 08:21 PM Posted May 22, 2009 at 08:21 PM It sounds like you are going to be busy Todd. Thanks for all of your hard work, it is very much appreciated.
Drylok Posted May 26, 2009 at 01:52 PM Posted May 26, 2009 at 01:52 PM Aren't the 2 or 3 people that fund them ever going to go broke?
Silver Guardian Posted May 26, 2009 at 02:00 PM Posted May 26, 2009 at 02:00 PM Aren't the 2 or 3 people that fund them ever going to go broke? That depends on what industry those few get their money from.
ewellnitz Posted May 27, 2009 at 12:27 AM Posted May 27, 2009 at 12:27 AM Aren't the 2 or 3 people that fund them ever going to go broke? That depends on what industry those few get their money from.Hopefully they had lots of stock in GM.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.