NOTE: This article was submitted in response to a recently published article written by Andy Barniskis, Legislative Chairman of the Bucks County Sportsmen's Coalition entitled: Gubernatorial Flashbacks in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Politics: Primary Election Analysis,
Self-Styled Experts and Armchair Generals

by Kim Stolfer and Mike Slavonic, Firearms Owners Against Crime

“There continues to be a small contingent of PA gun rights activists that cling to the concepts espoused by the ‘Flat Earth Society’ who refuse to adapt their tactics to 20^th century politics”

The acronym PAC stands for Political Action Committee but a better description is applying PAC to politicians as ‘Pain Avoidance Creatures’.  Pain for an elected official comes primarily at election time and that is why they seek to avoid taking a stand on issues that can harm their chances for reelection.  Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC) is the largest Pro-Gun Political Action Committee (PAC) registered in PA and we apply the pain avoidance philosophy, as part of a larger strategy, when working to achieve our purposes with legislators and other elected officials.

Unfortunately the questions recently discussed in some Internet circles regarding the Pennsylvania 2002 Primary Election have inaccurately represented many of the issues and actions taken throughout this Primary election campaign. We, Firearms Owners Against Crime, have been deeply involved in this year’s gubernatorial election with identifying the issues and the candidates, with input from area and regional groups, beginning as far back as September 2001.  One would think anyone attempting to write a serious, authoritative review of these elections would make every effort to talk to the organizations directly involved and get their feedback.  This did NOT happen and because the average gun-owner needs, and deserves, accurate information, we believe that it is the best interests of all to distribute our analysis of the election.

First, involvement in these elections was essential for gun owners for many reasons not the least of which was to heighten the debate on the firearms issue.  This effort also allowed us to put a pro-active pro-gun force into action to represent the needs of the pro-gun movement.  We (FOAC) recognized early on that the many facets of the Gun Control issue was one that ‘all’ the candidates would just as soon leave lie in light of the wave of renewed interest in gun ownership since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.  Pennsylvania law restricts most political activities to registered political action committees such as FOAC.  Until last year there had been a ‘turn the other cheek’ attitude permeating PA politics in regard to enforcement of election law barring political involvement by non-PAC organizations.  In 2001 the Law Enforcement Alliance of America deeply involved itself, through television ads paid for by money funneled from the NRA, in elections for the PA Supreme Court.  Since LEAA was not a registered PAC in PA the campaign of Kate Ford Eliot successfully sued to have the ads stopped and this resulted in an order to cease and desist from the PA Supreme Court.  The end result was a clarification as to which organizations could legally involve themselves in politics.  With this in mind, ‘why would a candidate for the office of Governor answer a questionnaire from Gun Owners of America (or letter containing questions from the Bucks County Sportsmen’s Coalition) since NEITHER are registered as a Political Action Committee in PA’?

FOAC sent 414 comprehensive questionnaires to all of the candidates for the PA 2002 primary and we have received completed questionnaires from each of the candidates for governor and from half of the candidates who ran for lieutenant governor.  The Republican candidate, Attorney General Mike Fisher, delayed responding to our survey until mid May.  Since our voter’s guide had already been published it was too late to be considered for the Primary Elections.  We met with all the candidates and their campaign staffs and it was clearly apparent that the information contained in these questionnaires caused a high level of internal turmoil and concern over the use of the information.  The jockeying for political position and the concern for the inevitable position and bias of the National Rifle Association towards Republicans also concerned certain political advisers of Bob Casey.  They were concerned that taking a strong stance on the Gun Control issue could drive away other constituencies he needed for support after the primary.  Essentially could they take this stand against gun control and be successful?  In the final analysis Bob Casey put his signature on an excellent questionnaire that contained many personal answers to the questions posed.  Ed Rendell’s answers (many of them core issues) to our questionnaire required an eleven-page response documenting our disagreements with the positions he holds.  We have posted on the FOAC web site (www.foac-pac.org) our analysis of Mr. Rendell’s responses for all interested gun owners to read.

Bob Casey DID lose the nomination to Ed Rendell but it is clear to those in political circles that the loss would have been much more dramatic if we had not mounted such a last minute overwhelming get out the vote effort.  We gauge this by a cross-platform analysis of other candidates we supported and returns from the polls where we had workers and areas of literature distribution.  It is also clear from after action reports that the Rendell camp had expected to win what is called tier 3 counties, especially those in Western Pennsylvania, and were shocked to see the loss of several of these.  Rendell only won 10 counties and Bob Casey won 57.  Yet the overall get-out-the-vote in those 10 counties was more successful which accounted for the end result.  It is important to note that in the 57 Casey counties the democratic vote percentage was slightly less than 19% while the vote percentage in Philadelphia was 44%.  Clearly, the incessant and chokingly heavy negative campaigning that occurred for months between Casey, who got the lion’s share of the blame for it, and Rendell turned off the vast majority of registered Pennsylvania democrats.  However the people in the 9 Counties in and around Ed Rendell’s own City of Philadelphia, which is mired in school, crime, and labor problems, came out strong for their favorite son.  On the other hand, Bob Casey failed in his attempt to generate southwestern PA voter support by selecting (anti-gun) State Senator Jack Wagner as his running mate.  The Casey campaign failed to realize until too late that the needed strong grass roots voter support, to offset the expected voter turnout in Rendell’s home area, was not being properly organized and motivated.  Without a firm, grassroots strategy and devotion to maintaining your political base a candidate in this position faces almost insurmountable odds and it remains to be seen if the candidates for the November campaign will adhere to this winning approach.

Why did we endorse the nomination for Casey?  The strong contrast that existed between the candidates and our experience in the last presidential election that showed that the voter turnout in the large cities with strong democratic support for Rendell would favor the anti-gun candidate.  This is the same factor that won the election of Al Gore in the last presidential election in PA. 

Our MAJOR limitation was time to communicate the differences between the candidates and this proved to be an insurmountable obstacle.  The blame for this can and should be laid at the feet of some of the upper Casey campaign staff for recognizing too late the need and importance of this issue to Pennsylvanians.  In the limited time available, FOAC was able to send out almost 40,000 direct mail pieces.  We also distributed well over 125,000 FOAC Voters Guides and the FOAC web site recorded over 50,000 hits in the month of May alone. 

The FOAC Voters Guide has become an important tool for gun-owning voters in western PA and its distribution is spreading through out the rest of the state.  As we have seen repeatedly in the past, our activism spills over into other races and has a dramatic effect in other areas.  Case in point, Roy Pitman organized volunteers from within his organization, the PA Gun Owners Association, and found that putting poll workers at polls REALLY got the candidates attention.  This included candidates such as Jean Jones, Democrat Candidate for the 6^th Dist. PA House, and Senator Jane Earll, Republican Candidate of Lt. Governor, (neither answered the FOAC questionnaire).  Their concern centered on the FOAC voter’s guide that specified that these individuals were ‘not suitable for this office’.  Mr. Pitman, unexpectedly, received calls from them at his home asking him what needs to be done to correct the situation.  This is the CRITICAL POINT: we MUST connect political and legislative activism IF we are to become effective at both!

“Pro-Gun” Organizations must understand that there are more factors than questionnaires and questions in letters to be used in judging candidates for political office.  We make a mistake when we say that a failure to answer this letter or that questionnaire should result in a candidate being judged as anti-gun.  The candidates' voting records (if incumbent), published statements, etc. should also enter into the decision.  More importantly, can the inquiring organization legally ask these questions?  As an example, the recent GOA survey of PA legislators and candidates shows inconsistencies that damage long developed relationships with pro-gun candidates such as Senator Jane Orie who was listed as ‘refused to respond’ when she had just answered the GOA questionnaire last year AND the truly anti-gun Senator Jack Wagner was not listed the same way.  We know that Senator Jane Orie (40^th District, PA Senate) called GOA and asked that her previous one-year old survey be used for her position and her legislative record is clear, as is her activism behind the scenes.  In the PA House, as an example, we have Representative John Pippy (44^th District, PA House) who is tremendously pro-gun and yet NOW he should be considered to be anti-gun for not answering a survey he has answered in the past and his voting record is not considered nor is the outspoken positions he has taken on our behalf?  This is not smart or productive!  Are we expected to accept this guidance from Gun Owners of America and the Bucks County Sportsmen’s Coalition even though the law prohibits them from taking part in elections and neither is registered as a political action committee in PA?  Representative John Pippy told FOAC “I am shocked that GOA has taken this position on my record.  My record on the issue of gun control speaks for itself, as does my commitment to all Constitutional and sportsmen’s issues.  The fact that GOA never called, or stopped by my office, makes me question their intent”.  Another part of the reason that we have difficulties with incumbents is that contact with legislators SHOULD be fair and straightforward otherwise enemies are created unnecessarily.  For instance, Rep. Jerry Nailor is STILL deeply concerned over his treatment by GOA in past elections.  GOA publicly vilified this pro-gun legislator without even taking the time to reason out and discuss the issues of contention between them.  These problems then grow into communication difficulties between legislators and other groups as well as legislative difficulties that we do not need.

The Governor’s race is but one component of a larger picture and we must remember that this is a republic, and the Governor is just 1/3^rd of the three branches of our government.  When all is said and done from now to November in the Governor’s race, we still need to have a legislature in place that will work together, and with us, in order to make the necessary changes to protect our hunting heritage and gun ownership rights.  It is in the General Assembly where the rubber meets the road, and that means working with members on both sides of the aisle.  This is why we must be ‘constantly’ involved in political races and legislative initiatives.  We constantly work on our strategy and tactics but will not publicly disclose this information for the same reason that the military does not as we do not wish our enemies to be forewarned.

Over the years, FOAC’s reputation with elected officials and candidates has grown because of our willingness to educate and provide understanding of issues important to gunowners and hunters.  We also believe that educating the grassroots gun owner and showing them what works and what doesn’t will have a dramatic effect on the political landscape.  If other “Pro-Gun” organizations will work with us to increase our effectiveness and build on this momentum the gunowner wins no matter who wins the election for Governor.  What we do between now and November to build up the grassroots will have a resounding effect when the new candidates take office in January 2003 IF we ‘all’ work together.

Ronald Reagan said it best: “There is no telling what you can accomplish if you don’t worry who gets the credit.” 

Supporting Organization(s):

Lehigh Valley Firearms Coalition, John Brinson-President

Attestations:

"FOAC has converted many lawmakers into hard-line defenders of your gun rights.  No other organization has converted so many urban and suburban Pennsylvania legislators to our cause.  From its beginnings in Allegheny County, FOAC has been growing and spreading because FOAC works.  In areas where FOAC is active, legislators have learned that FOAC is devastatingly effective during elections.  FOAC tips the balance - either way – depending on a legislator's voting record and answers on the FOAC questionnaire.  Party affiliation is irrelevant and FOAC works harder and smarter than any other organization to assist good pro-gun legislators at election time.  All that is necessary for evil legislators to triumph is for you to sit around and complain instead of joining with FOAC."

Harry Schneider, PSA Chairman
Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Assn.,
Rights, not privileges