Friday, October 30, 2015

Senators Who Voted Against Background Checks Received More Pro-Gun Contributions

Maplight

October 8, 2015 -- This week, Senate Democrats will reportedly unveil new legislation that would block guns from being sold without background checks. The bill, sponsored by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), would close a loophole that allows retailers to sell guns without a background check after 72 hours.
Background check legislation last saw a Senate vote in April 2013 after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, when an amendment sponsored by Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) would have provided a stricter background check process to prevent criminals and those deemed mentally ill from purchasing a gun (you can read the full text of the measure here). The amendment failed to garner the 60 votes required to override a filibuster and was stopped by a vote of 54-46.
  • Senators voting against the 2013 Manchin-Toomey Amendment received, on average, 11 times more money ($25,631) from pro-gun interest groups than senators voting for it ($2,340) between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2014. In contrast, campaign contributions from anti-gun groups to Senators in the same period were negligible. Tweet: Senators voting against a 2013 background check amendment received 11x more money from pro-gun groups: http://bit.ly/1LiBti7 @MapLight
  • Six senators received more than $50,000 from pro-gun interest groups between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2014. Of those, only one (Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), also a co-sponsor of the amendment) supported the stricter background check process. Tweet: Of 6 senators who received >$50K from pro-gun groups 2009-2014, only @SenToomey supported stricter background checks http://bit.ly/1LiBti7

29 comments:

  1. Yeah? Do you suppose that senators who voted for it didn't receive more money from "gun control" groups? Is that not also "corrupt"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, that's not corrupt. That's common sense and honesty.

      Delete
    2. No, that's not corrupt.

      Ah--now I get it. "Corrupt" is defined as anything Mikeb doesn't approve of.

      Delete
    3. That's common sense and honesty.

      This is what passes for intellectual integrity in the gun control industry.

      Are you really trying to see a canard that says politicians receive money from gun rights groups = corruption.......Politicians receive money from gun control groups = "common sense and honesty"?

      Delete
    4. I was being a bit flip with Kurt. Actually, I think the whole system is corrupt.

      Delete
    5. I was being a bit flip with Kurt. Actually, I think the whole system is corrupt.

      So what alternative "system" do you propose? One in which private citizens have no leverage on our servants in government?

      Delete
    6. I don't know really, maybe getting the money out of politics in some way.

      Delete
    7. "I don't know really, maybe getting the money out of politics in some way."

      Mike, I don't think you can do that without having a negative effect on free speech. After all, media time runs on money, and you need media to most effectively express your positions on issues.
      Also keep in mind that keeping money out of politics is a two edged sword. Just think of all of the money that advocates of the positions you favor are expending. Just recently, former Mayor Bloomberg dropped over a million dollars into campaign ads in Virginia in hopes of changing the political landscape there.

      Delete
    8. I know a way to get the money out of politics, but you're not going to like it.

      Take the power out of politics. The more open market and free the people are, the less you have to "buy" politicians to get what you want.

      Delete
    9. Open the markets. Free the people. Reduce the role of government.

      Delete
    10. Sounds pretty nebulous. Strange for you, not that I'm complaining. I prefer the briefer you.

      Delete
  2. This is shocking. You mean to tell us that pro-gun interest groups tend to give money to people who are pro-gun? What corruption!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's special interest politics at its best.

      Delete
  3. "In contrast, campaign contributions from anti-gun groups to Senators in the same period were negligible."

    This certainly doesn't paint a very rosy picture for the success of the gun control lobby in the political arena. Especially in light of a statement by former Mayor Bloomberg claiming that he would,

    “You think you can really outspend the NRA and the gun manufacturers?” Couric asked.
    “Oh sure,” Bloomberg responded. “I’m not the only funder of this. All of these groups raise money. There are other people who understand. They want their kids to be safe.”

    “I will support individual senators and congressmen that vote to make my kids safer and your kids safer,” he said."

    http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/03/michael-bloomberg-i-will-outspend-the-nra-gun-manufacturers-video-2920282.html

    So he literally isn't putting his money where his mouth is. I guess he'll just have to hope that pro-gun elected officials are replaced in elections with those in favor of new laws.
    Oh wait, that doesn't seem to be working either.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are becoming confused ssg. Money is needed to create favorable legislation for a damaging and harmful political cause. No one need contribute money for a righteous cause to gain political favor. We simply expose the truth and appeal to the best nature of ourselves.

      Delete
    2. "No one need contribute money for a righteous cause to gain political favor. We simply expose the truth and appeal to the best nature of ourselves."

      FJ, then pray tell, why does the leader of Everytown suggest that being able to outspend the NRA will turn the tide? The gun control lobby has been exposing the truth of their righteous cause for many years now, and overall, individual rights to include gun rights have been expanding year by year.
      To say nothing of the fact that every time the gun control lobby's goals fail, that failure is almost always attributed to the deep pockets of gun rights groups. There have even been some elections where Everytown and similar groups have outspent pro-gun groups and still lost.

      Delete
    3. SS thinks money has no responsibility at all for the vote decisions of politicians. What we have is want the people want, according to SS.

      Delete
    4. "What we have is want the people want, according to SS."

      It tends to work that way Anon over the long run. One has but to look at the range of extremes in state level gun laws to see that. For example, we have some places that have a de facto no carry policy such as Hawaii, New Jersey, and DC. And the other end of the spectrum are the Constitutional carry states.
      And as I've said before, if these gun laws are so important to them, all they have to do is throw the bums out at the next election. Or even earlier as happened in Colorado.
      There are some interesting races shaping up in that regard coming up in 2016. Virginia comes to mind, where the former Mayor is dropping large amounts of money into their favorite for that race.

      Delete
    5. Except on the gun issue?
      75% of Americans want background checks, that number hasn't changed in years. But the NRA has paid politicians plenty to vote against the will of the people, and they do, for money.

      Delete
    6. "75% of Americans want background checks, that number hasn't changed in years. But the NRA has paid politicians plenty to vote against the will of the people, and they do, for money."

      Well Anon, if that high of a percentage of voters want background checks, then you have but to harness that power of the ballot box to elect voters to vote elected officials who will vote in favor of them into office.
      With percentages like that, you should even have no problem holding recall elections like they did that resulted in three politicians losing their seats. Wasn't that partially about background checks also? If it was, where was that 70% of Americans to insure the recall failed?
      If you can't get the people out to vote, then I guess it isn't really important enough to them. Or perhaps the assorted polls and surveys are wrong.

      Delete
    7. "75% of Americans want background checks"

      They must be pissed at Harry Reid then, who didn't even let Tom Coburn's bill to provide a service for private background checks get voted on. You must be especially pissed.

      Delete
    8. "75% of Americans want background checks, that number hasn't changed in years."

      Hey Anon, just thought I'd throw in a little update here in regards to how well outspending the opponent works in an election,

      "A hard-fought effort by gun control groups to turn Virginia’s Senate blue failed while Republicans also won governor’s races in Mississippi and Kentucky.
      Despite over $2.4 million dumped into the state by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety organization – by contrast, the National Rifle Association spent a paltry $45,000 – Virginia’s Senate retained its narrow 21-19 GOP control."

      "After the smoke cleared in Tuesday’s polls, NRA-endorsed Republican Glen H. Sturtevant Jr. picked up about 1,400 more votes than Gecker for the win of the 10th Senate District while fellow GOP candidate Harry J. “Hal” Parrish II lost to Everytown’s McPike in the 29th District. However, as McPike was campaigning to win the seat of outgoing Democratic Sen. Charles J. Colgan and Sturtevant garnered a traditional Republican seat, the party makeup of the senate remains unchanged."

      "In related news, Parker, who has vowed to become the “John Walsh of gun control,” last week found himself at the center of a controversy over remarks made to pro-gun state Sen. William M. Stanley Jr., R-Franklin County, who represents Parker’s district. Stanley walked away with an easy 15-point victory over Democratic challenger Kim E. Adkins with 100 percent of the polls reporting Tuesday."

      http://www.guns.com/2015/11/04/elections-strong-pro-gun-wins-nationwide-despite-bloomberg-push/

      As the old saying goes, the people have spoken.

      Delete
    9. Your anecdote doesn't change, or prove wrong the 75% figure, but it's a nice story.

      Delete
    10. "Your anecdote doesn't change, or prove wrong the 75% figure, but it's a nice story"

      Well Anon, it is possible that the 75% figure is correct. However, the accuracy of the figure doesn't matter if people aren't willing to hold politicians accountable with their votes. You have to both communicate your position to your elected representative AND vote accordingly. If you leave one of those out, it's on you. Elected officials are supposed to represent the voters in the according to what they want. It isn't their job to vote according to a poll or survey.

      Delete
    11. Tell that to the voting politicians who vote against background checks when their constituents are saying they want background checks.

      Delete
    12. That is the responsibility of the individual voter Anon. In fact politicians hire people who's job it is to keep track of that kind of thing. They also hold meetings with their constituents in the district periodically.
      I have made my feelings known on this issue with my elected representatives both by email and in person. I do have one elected official that doesn't support my position on gun rights and I will be voting against him in the next election and supporting his opponent's campaign.

      Delete
  4. I guess I am never going to get this thing completely. I'm just not built to understand this level of bullshit.

    As a condition of my employment, I passed a twenty-year background check. That means that I am a safe individual, certified by the State of California, with our most precious treasures, our own very children.

    I would assume that most of the commenters here could pass a simple background check as required to purchase a firearm. ???

    Why in the hell would you give a flying fuck about any miscreant who would not be able to pass such a background check? Why would you approve of such a social misfit owning a gun? Why do you care, in the slightest degree about universal availability of weapons, even for sick fucks that society has determined have absolutely no right to own a gun? What am I missing here? Wake the fuck up!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you are missing, Flying Junior, is that the anti-gun people propose making it a serious crime to sell or even lend your gun to anyone- not just the miscreants that you refer to. Why are the penalties the same whether I hand you a gun, or a three time felon who is high on meth? And since all these penalties are for regular activities in the gun culture, it absolutely affects us and we damn well have a right to care what they are trying to do to us. Remember, gun rights people have proposed solutions that expand background checks without all these serious innocuous crimes, and the gun control people soundly rejected them. They could have had more background checks years ago, but they seem more interested in putting good people in jail for letting their buddy handle their gun.

      Delete