This just in: The mainstream media hates the National Rifle Association.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I might as well have informed you that the sky was blue or that water was wet.
Despite that, it’s still helpful to recognize how they show their bias. With election day being today, though, it’s like they’re not even trying to pretend to be unbiased at the moment.
Which is how you get crap like this, a story titled, “Election Day 2018: Who has gotten the most money from the NRA?”
Donations from the National Rifle Association for the 2018 midterm election are down sharply this election cycle following a year that saw several high-profile mass shootings, one of which led to a call for companies and candidates to cut ties with the gun owner advocacy group.
According to filings from the Federal Election Commissions, the NRA has spent around $11 million on contributions in the 2018 midterm elections. The final tally will be released after Tuesday’s elections.
The drop in spending comes in a year that has seen an investigation into what federal authorities say were Russian agents seeking to influence the 2016 election by trying to funnel money through the group, in addition to mass shootings and a drop in individual and corporate support.
Others say the decline in campaign funding is due to a decline in membership and fundraising in the wake of mass shootings in Las Vegas and Parkland, Florida.
In the 2014 midterm election, the NRA’s political action committee and political nonprofit arm spent more than $14 million on independent expenditures and around a million on direct campaign contributions to candidates and groups. At this point for the 2018 election, the NRA has spent $9,114,585 in independent expenditures and just over $800,000 in direct contributions to candidates.
And, of course, it goes on and on to examine the NRA’s spending and which candidates it gave money.
While the paper does comment on how much Giffords has donated this election cycle, they don’t example how much the group gave to anti-gun candidates in any way, shape, or form.
In other words, it’s only the NRA’s spending that deserves to be examined, not the other side’s.
The reason for this is simple. Anti-gunners are absolutely convinced that the only reason politicians could possibly have for opposing gun control is corruption. They’re so deluded by their self-righteousness that many of them can’t understand that the NRA gives money to pro-gun candidates, it doesn’t create pro-gun candidates by giving them money.
They can’t comprehend that someone could look at gun control and reason out that it’s a failure, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s nothing more than a way to punish people who didn’t do anything wrong. No, they have to be bought and paid for.
On the other hand, groups like Giffords are clearly above such things. Their donations are pure, and it’s unnecessary to examine their spending.
It’s like they say, if it weren’t for double standards, most Leftists wouldn’t have any standards at all.
Look, I don’t care who took what from the NRA or Giffords. As long as they’re not breaking any laws, I don’t give a damn about that from either group.
But I do hate seeing the NRA being held up under a microscope while others aren’t, especially when they bring up the NRA’s financial issues and fail to mention the attacks by the governor of New York and his decision to push financial institutions to cut off the organization. I mean, that couldn’t have been a factor, now could it?
But yet, double standards. It’s what the mainstream media does these days, now isn’t it?