Gun Control Groups Are Pouring Serious Money Into House Races

They want a Congress committed to firearm safety measures.

A screenshot from one of gun control group Giffords' ads targeting Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.).Giffords PAC

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Since the February school shooting in Parkland, Florida, that ignited a national outcry for stricter gun laws, gun safety-aligned candidates and gun safety advocates have been hellbent on translating that outrage into the midterm turnout. Now, both national gun groups and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee—whose entire purpose is to turn the House blue—have announced massive advertising campaigns that seek to increase voter turnout for candidates committed to gun safety measures and hammer vulnerable Republican House members who have stood in the way of gun reform. The amount of money spent and this strategy highlights the group’s shared commitment to returning the House majority to the Democrats, a party likely to take up gun control measures if they are in control. 

Earlier today, Everytown for Gun Safety, the gun control group backed by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, announced a $5 million advertising campaign for 15 competitive House races in California, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia, and Washington. The campaign, called “Not One More,” aims to increase voter turnout across gun control-minded voters—like youth, women, and voters of color—in key districts that could determine House control. (The Democrats need to gain 23 House seats to cede power from Republicans.)

Everytown’s announcement comes on the heels of a hefty spend from Giffords, the gun safety group founded by former Democratic Arizona congresswoman and mass-shooting survivor Gabby Giffords and her husband, astronaut Mark Kelly. Their group has dropped $4 million on television advertisements targeting three House Republicans—Reps. Mike Coffman (Colo.), Barbara Comstock (Va.), and Jason Lewis (Minn.)—who rank among the top recipients of National Rifle Association funding in recent cycles.

But perhaps the most remarkable allocation of resources comes from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has weighed in with its very first gun control-focused advertisement. The TV ad targets Rep. Leonard Lance (N.J.), a Republican incumbent waging a tough reelection battle against former Obama administration official Tom Malinowski. Lance, as of late, has been one of the few GOP House members willing to take up any gun control measures. Earlier this year, he cosponsored legislation that would expand background checks and keep guns out of the hands of people who pose a risk to themselves or others. But the DCCC’s ad takes the long view of Lance’s record, highlighting his past pro-guns’ rights votes and “A” ratings from the NRA.

The DCCC’s attack on Lance exposes one of the few fault lines between the national Democrats and gun control groups. Organizations like Giffords, Everytown, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have generally aligned themselves to support the same congressional candidates they think can restore Democratic rule to the House, something that would give gun control measures the chance to succeed. Lance’s Democratic opponent, Malinowski, has voiced support for the gun safety movement’s aims. But Giffords endorsed Lance this cycle and contributed $2,000 to his campaign last December, citing his co-sponsorship of a bill to ban bump stocks—appliances that turn guns into automatic weapons—in the aftermath of the 2017 Las Vegas massacre, and his vote against legislation that would have made it easier for at-risk veterans to buy firearms. (Even so, the group has not announced any substantial financial commitment to his race.)

The new advertisements fit a pattern of increased pro-gun control advertising exhibited across the field of Democratic candidates this cycle. According to an analysis from USA Today, both parties’ candidates have run twice as many ads that support gun control than opposing it. The trend reverses the 2016 election cycle, when gun rights’ advertisements outranked gun control ones by a ratio of nearly three-to-one. And the spending is likely to continue: Both Giffords and Everytown spent more than eight figures apiece during the 2016 general election. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate