On Saturday, March 24th, the March for Our Lives rally was held in Washington, D.C. and in major cities around the country. Students from the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida appeared and gave impassioned speeches regarding gun control in the nation's capital, with harsh criticism for the National Rifle Association of America (NRA).

One thing that the students decided to display at the rally were orange price tags with the figure of $1.05 on them to reflect how much each of their lives is worth to Senator Marco Rubio, thanks to the fact that he is the lone Republican U.S. Senator from Florida and is proudly backed by the NRA. The figure reflects the total amount of money that Sen. Rubio has accepted from the NRA divided by the total number of students in Florida.

First of all, it is absolutely morally reprehensible to impugn someone's concern over innocent children whose lives were stolen, but to declare that they only see their lives as being worth a measly $1.05? That's an entirely new level of reprehensible.

Secondly, according to CNN, "A Washington Post examination of Federal Election Commission data indicates that as far as donations go, Rubio has received only $4,950 directly from the NRA in his career and returned a further $9,900." Of course, the NRA, as well as any other lobbying group, can spend however much they'd like on ads for candidates or against their opponents.

Now putting those two points aside, let's move forward with the highly publicized figure of $3.3 million that Sen. Rubio has received from "gun rights groups" over the course of his career. Again, the bulk of that has not gone to Sen. Rubio directly, but rather ads in favor of his campaigns or in opposition to his opponents.

In doing that, I will be referencing a fantastic article published in February by Jake Novak at CNBC, which I encourage everyone to read, that goes to great lengths explaining the reality of the NRA's lobbying efforts, their "owning" of politicians they endorse and how they stack up against other lobbying groups.

The first significant bit of information is that, "The NRA, gun makers, and gun rights issues do not even show up on the OpenSecrets website lists for top lobbying firms, top lobbying sectors, top lobbying issues, or top lobbying industries for the years 1998-2017." For an organization that so many tout as "running Washington" you'd think they would make an appearance on at least one of those lists, but they don't. Nor does any gun related lobbying effort.

The second significant bit is in reference to Sen. Rubio specifically. Sure, the NRA and gun rights groups are responsible for $3.3 million that Sen. Rubio has received over the course of his career, but, "A look at the top 20 donors to Rubio directly and his PAC since 2009 does not include the NRA." Furthermore, "Over his career since 2009, Rubio has raised a total of more than $91 million in donations." Meaning that the money from the NRA and gun rights groups only comprises a whopping 3.3% of donations that Sen. Rubio has received throughout his career.

So, do you really think that 3.3% of Sen. Rubio's campaign contributions over the course of his career is really the defining factor in how he chooses to vote or what gun-related legislation to back? My guess would be no. Which really pokes a hole in the notion that the NRA owns politicians, considering Sen. Rubio has been one of the top beneficiaries of NRA contributions and it still just makes up 3.3% of his total donations.

If the NRA truly does buy out and own politicians, then why has it been so unsuccessful in doing so with Democratic politicians? Is it because Democrats are the arbiters of morality and uprightness in regard to being beholden to certain lobbying groups? Of course not. The NRA endorses candidates and incumbents because of the fact that they already have a strong support of the Second Amendment prior to running or winning a campaign.

The same is true for any lobbying group. Why does Planned Parenthood donate millions to Democrats? Is it because they were able to successfully buy out and own Democrats exclusively and failed to do so with Republicans for the same reasons that I listed above? Of course not. Planned Parenthood endorses candidates and incumbents because of the fact that they are strong supporters of Planned Parenthood, a woman's right to choose and are pro-choice prior to running or winning a campaign.

Most lobbying groups endorse politicians because they already have views that are in line with what said groups are lobbying for. Which means they know that person will vote in favor of legislation that benefits their cause should they win office or win re-election.

If you're still not convinced that the NRA isn't the oligarch of Washington I have one final rebuttal: since 1998, the NRA has spent $203 million. That's certainly not a number to sneeze at, but keep in mind that there were 133 million gun owners as of 2010 from my first article in this series. Now, let's contrast that with the fact that Wall Street and the financial industry spent $1.1 billion in 2016 alone, while employing 6 million people. In other words, the NRA spent $203 million over the course of nearly 20 years while representing over 100 million people and the financial industry spent $1.1 billion in 1 year while representing just 6 million. That's quite a stark contrast in terms of the influence that each of these lobbying groups would have over politicians.

You can disagree with their tactics, messaging, lobbying or even core principles as much as you'd like, but one thing is certain--the NRA is not the most powerful and influential lobbying group in the US. Not by a long shot.