More on the New Likely Brady Campaign Goals

John Richardson did some digging into the organization that Dan Gross founded to get an idea of what he bringing to the table. It definitely seems to be money.

…they use entertainment and New York sports figures as their draw. I think Brady is seeking an in to deep pockets and Gross will provide that. I’m sure he has a great Rolodex.

He also knows how to get taxpayer dollars according to what Jacob found.

I don’t believe he’s been on the receiving end of pork from Albany. He did get $50,000 (through PAX) from the NYC Council in ’10

Jacob also did some digging through NY state political donation records and it seems to indicate that he is not the same Dan Gross who has given modestly to Democrats the last few years. Instead, the new Brady president has only given to one candidate. He was backing a Democrat though, so he is likely on that side of the political spectrum.

More and more, it looks like the involvement of Dan Gross indicates that the Brady Center will be the big focus and they are likely quietly handing off the political work to Bloomberg. I noticed that the Brady accounts have been promoting Bloomberg’s MAIG Super Bowl commercial in social media, so that could be read as another sign that they are leaving that work up to the billionaire while the Brady Center staffers just try to fundraise to save their jobs. (This also wouldn’t be unheard of since we know that the partnership started a few years ago when both MAIG & Brady were using the same lobbyist who now heads CeaseFirePA.)

7 thoughts on “More on the New Likely Brady Campaign Goals”

  1. I’m taking a step back and looking at the Big Picture. I think this guy was hired to raise money. I also think that the Anti-Freedom Movement is doing some re-shuffling, and they are going to set up “Specialty” Branches. MAIG will focus on local Politics, the Brady’s will focus on Washington, the Joyce Foundation will fund Shills like Peterson and Kilgore, etc. They have been doing a lot of “stepping on each others toes” over the last few years. Plus I expect to see the Anti-Freedom Movement to get into Anti-Gun Campaign ads, especially since the Supremes loosened the Rules on who can spend Money on Political Free Speech. Stay Tuned.

    1. To me, that line up doesn’t make any sense. MAIG is focusing on local politics even though there’s only one state where they’ve made any kind of local push at all (and that appears to have largely backed off) and they are airing their only ad in DC? Not to mention, at election time in 2010, they only ran commercials on behalf of federal candidates.

      If you think this guy was brought in for fundraising, then why does that mean Brady is the organization being appointed to handle DC? He has no DC connections and the Brady Campaign (the arm that can lobby) has slashed its budgets to a fraction of what they used to be. Add in the lack of serious activity in their PAC, that’s actually anything but DC-type behavior.

      I understand what you’re trying to say, but I think you’ve picked the wrong groups targeting the wrong audiences. MAIG may have the word “mayors” in the title, but other than their initial breach into Pennsylvania a few years ago, they haven’t done anything local. Everything has had a federal focus. Brady may be headquartered in DC, but their spending and priorities as demonstrated through public records is pretty much the opposite of what most groups who are focused on federal goals would do.

  2. I find it interesting that the Brady Campaign website has taken down the bio for Dan Gross. We know they jumped the gun on that but once the cat was out of the bag it is too late to try and make a “surprise announcement.”

    You don’t think Dan may have reconsidered, do you?

    As to salary, I’m guessing he’ll be getting somewhere in the neighborhood of $250K. His listed salary for 2009 was $214,000 plus another $8K or so from other organizations.

    1. Hah! That’s too funny. I’ll have to upload the screen cap I got of it. :)

      No, I’m sure he hasn’t reconsidered. I just suspect they don’t like being called out for their missteps in communication execution when the leader of the organization is supposedly an expert in the subject. :)

    1. Cool, the survey actually lets you check both boxes. “I am in favor of gun laws and policies to save lives” and “I oppose gun control”. That sums up my view pretty well.

Comments are closed.