Bloomberg Dumping Another 1.5 Million Into Virginia

This time is a cool 1.5 million, in addition to the $700,000 he pledged yesterday. He means to drown us in money, and unfortunately for us, he has enough to do it:

Less than two weeks before Election Day, Everytown for Gun Safety on Thursday announced that it would spend $1.5 million in TV and online ads for Democrat Jeremy McPike. He is running against Manassas Mayor Harry J. “Hal” Parrish II (R) to succeed retiring Sen. Charles J. Colgan (D-Prince William).

Bloomberg thinks he can buy his way to victory, and unfortunately, he may be right. This is big big money; far more than NRA could ever afford to dump into a single race in a single state. If he wins, you can bet he’s going to be talking about the tide changing, and how he showed NRA can be beat in its home state.

The big question was always how much Bloomberg was really willing to spend. These gestures indicates the answer is big-big money, and that he’s willing to do it at the state level where this kind of money is unheard of.

This is not good for us. Whether we like it or not, his money can overcome our grassroots energy if he’s willing to spend enough of it. Hal Parrish’s campaign web site can be found here. NRA-PVF can be found here.

Yes, it is possible for one rich asshole to buy power in our Republic if he has enough and is willing to spend enough to do it. Bloomberg seems able and willing. I’m sorry that’s the case, but it is just is. Grassroots is the only way we can counter it. But will it be enough? Will enough people step up?

14 Responses to “Bloomberg Dumping Another 1.5 Million Into Virginia”

  1. Divemedic says:

    So once the ballot box is stolen from us, what is left?
    They paid money for the soapbox and the ballot box.

  2. The Jack says:

    I’m wondering how much of this opening of the purse is due to Bloomberg facing his mortality.

    He’s not exactly a young man and he can’t take it with him….

    So maybe he does decide to spend as much as he can now so he can “enjoy” the fruits of his money.

    There’s also that he’s stated in interviews that he feels he’s doing holy work and God approves of his action…

    • harp1034 says:

      I don’t think he really believes in God. Such people as Bloomberg say that they are a born again Christian or Orthodox Jew but they are just saying that to fool the masses. By the way his son is just as radical as the old man.

  3. Jake says:

    I don’t know if we can fight that kind of money at the state level. But if we can, I think the best approach is going to be the “Do you want a senator who was bought and paid for by a New York politician?” route.

    But that’s a ridiculous amount of money for a single donor in a state senate race. It’s going to be hard to counter just based on the number of ads it can buy.

  4. RAH says:

    Money is good for TV ads. However volunteers that go door to door are usually more effective and do not cost that much. That can counteract Bloomberg’s money Grassroots always overcome money advantage. NRA power does not come from its donations but rather the amount of calls to Congressman and the fact that owners vote.

  5. Alpheus says:

    As scary as this is, I can’t help but wonder how many ways this strategy might backfire.

    For example: how much money can you practically spend, before you get to a point where you saturate your market with your message? If that point is pretty low, then Bloomberg will be wasting his money beyond that point.

    Another example: Ads showing the given politician being a puppet for New York interests is going to be fun. “Ban guns! Ban salt! Ban trans fat! Ban Soda! Ban fun!”

    Another example: If the money is tied to campaigning for gun control, and Virginians aren’t receptive to that message…he may have sunk the campaigns for these politicians. Alternatively, Virginians might be somewhat receptive to the message, but if all they ever hear is “Common Sense Gun Laws!” the people might become over-saturated with that message, and start saying “We get it, we get it! But what else are you for?” and if the people get the impression that this is the only issue these politicians care about (even if it’s not the case), then it may not work out well for them…

    Having said that, this is new territory for us, so it’s unpredictable how this will pan out; thus, it worries me. I take a little bit of solace in the fact that politicians have won their races, despite being outspent 20-to-1, because they had a better message than their opponents.

    Which brings to mind another example: such large donations obscure the donor-popularity of a given politician. If Joe Politic has $700,000, all from grass-roots donations, while Jim Bergie has $2,000,000, but only $500,000 from grass-roots donations, then it may very well be that Joe is the one who has an edge, despite being the one with less money…

  6. Erin Palette says:

    Didn’t ISIS or al-Quaeda say that they would be targeting high profile jews, like Bloomberg and Zuckerberg?

  7. Joe_in_Pitt says:

    Bloomberg dumped a truckload of money into the CO recall elections, and still lost (even if it was temporary).

    Not only can grassroots still beat all his money, I do think the potential exists for THAT much saturation of airwaves to actually result in voter backlash.

    • Alpheus says:

      If not outright backlash, but even a potential to become numb to the message. I could imagine the people of Virginia hearing Bloomberg’s ads so much that they just become “static noise”, and that they don’t even register when it comes to voting for the candidate of their choice…

      Not that there’s a guarantee that this would happen, mind you, but it’s a possibility that occurs to me. Particularly if it involves only one or two messages (“Ban guns!” and “He’s a racist because he was on the same school board as five blacks and two white guys that voted for a controversial school redistricting that was passed 5-4 and is now being accused of racial biase, despite three black representatives voting for it!”) that are easily refuted, or goes against the values of a sufficient number of Virginians…

  8. Jake says:

    “I take a little bit of solace in the fact that politicians have won their races, despite being outspent 20-to-1, because they had a better message than their opponents.”

    Agreed. I also take solace in the fact that, even with Bloomberg’s money and a breaking scandal involving the sitting Republican governor that was used to make the whole party look bad, McAuliffe still only won the election by the skin of his teeth.

  9. RAH says:

    I agree that door to door grassroots overcome money advantage as was done in Co recall elections. But I am not hearing about the effort. This is the province of VCDL yet I have not heard what they are doing to counteract this effort by Bloomberg. VCDL is usually effective.

  10. alanstorm says:

    Amazing how “money in politics” isn’t quite so nasty to liberals when THEY’RE the benificiaries.

  11. Janelle says:

    The distinction?