Following the Money

John Richardson takes a look at how much money Bloomberg really donated to Mark Herring’s campaign. We knew it had to be a lot, because that kind of favor doesn’t come cheap, even if your an anti-gun Democrat.

Lo and behold the top donor to his campaign for Attorney General was none other than Independence USA PAC. They gave $1,292,417 of in-kind donations to his campaign. The money went for media production and advertising buys. To put this into perspective, the next two highest donors gave approximately half this amount each. The only candidate to get more money from that PAC was Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-VA).

Not all Bloomberg’s money for gun control funnels through Everytown. If you want to understand why Dems are going so hard on this issue, it’s because Bloomberg is paying them to. 1.3 million in a state race is a lot of moolah. Unfortunately, democracy can be bought, folks. The only counter for this kind of cash is grassroots energy for pro-gun candidates.

11 thoughts on “Following the Money”

  1. Something these candidates don’t yet realize about the Mayatola’s money is that the cash flow is not continuous. Herring should not automatically assume he’s going to receive a wheelbarrow full of money when he’s up for re-election just because he did Bloomberg’s bidding this time around.

  2. Are these pro-gun candidates also antiwar anti-military anti-obamacare pro-prison-reform pro-criminal-justice-reform pro-drug-legalization pro-LGBT-rights and pro-choice? Because if not I am not voting for them.

    1. Funny you should mention some of those positions. I think much of Bloomberg’s money went to attacking Mark Obershain regarding abortion and women’s rights.

      It was a shrewd move on Bloomberg’s part because it allowed him to get the anti-gun candidate in office without really exposing his anti-gun positions. Herring was made out to be the pro-choice, pro-womyn candidate which appealed to urban voters in NoVa, Richmond, and the Norfolk/Hampton Roads/Virginia Beach area.

    2. An unintended consequence of all the abortions since the USSC legalized them is the huge influx of illegal immigrants to supply the labor that would have been covered by those “should have existed” people.
      An additional cost is that they would have been raised as US citizens imbued with our culture, instead of these clowns that are almost entirely from failed cultures. Most of them make no effort to become Americans, but insist on bringing that baggage with them, and then raise their children in the same manner as they were.

      Hard to quantify the damage done, but it will be significant. I expect that history will paint this as one of the major causes of the collapse of the USA. We’ll be categorized right there with the Romans, but won’t have lasted as long.

    3. I take it you are not a Republican. Which is fine.

      So what exactly are you and others doing to ensure that a healthy respect for Second Amendment rights is thriving among electable candidates in other parties? I haven’t really noticed a grassroots uprising in primary elections on the left to get some Blue Dogs back on the roster. Those guys are all long gone.

      Likewise, the Libertarian candidate in VA did oh-so-well in the last election *eye-roll.* I’m sympathetic to the Libertarian party’s platform but there’s a time and place to vote your conscience (say, in a Presidential election where the electoral college makes your vote irrelevant, or a high-confidence blow-out), and there’s times to vote strategically.

      The Democrats literally want to turn gun owners into felons, likely having SWAT teams serve the warrants. They are actively pursuing a legislative and executive agenda to make this happen in places they have control. The Courts, in most places, will not restrain them.

      Do you think the GOP will be able to successfully turn the behaviors you talk about into serious felonies?
      – Cucinneli really didn’t like the LGBT community; got it. But guess what? Cucinneli’s administration would be bound by the SCOTUS’s ruling on gay marriage just like any other state.
      – Likewise, Cucinelli was anti-abortion; do you see women getting slapped with felony convictions after seeking out a back-alley abortion with a coat hanger anywhere in the USA in a post Roe-v-Wade world? I sure don’t.
      – Do you see the VA legislature or governor or AG playing a significant role in whether the US decides to militarily intervene militarily around the world? I rather doubt that POTUS gives a ring to the Old Dominion state to ask their opinion on such matters.

      So, that leaves us with criminal justice reform. Another position I’m not philosophically opposed to either. But now we have to vote strategically. If you’re a VA gun owner, what’s more important to you?
      – Increasing the odds that the State reduces sentences for certain non-violent offenses, either via statute or commutation, or…
      – Increasing the odds that the State pursues policies intended to criminalize the bearing and keeping of arms?

      If nothing else, rational self interest should motivate most folks to vote against the actors that want them in a cattle car, and have a road map that would allow them to get from “Point A” to “Point B” if given sufficient power.

      Usually we get a choice between a douche and a turd sandwich. If turd sandwich wants me in a Gulag because I own an AR-15 and carry a sidearm, then I’ll hold my nose and vote for douche in the general, while doing things to improve the quality of candidates across the board earlier in the process (like at the primary stage).

      Gun owners who knowingly pull the lever for anti-gun politicians are not helping the long term climate for the 2A.

      1. The GOP (sometimes) talks a good game, but it’s been at least a generation since they’ve delivered anything at the national level. Arguably it’s been at least since Calvin Coolidge. And like I say, the social issues are a dealbreaker. I have yet to see within my lifetime anything meaningful happen for any length of time on fiscal issues. And when it comes to gun issues my sense is that the Dems are completely limp–especially when it comes to enforcement. So fix it or forget it.

        1. They are only limp because they choose to be. History shows, and the latest unfortunate moves in VA indicate, that those desiring power hold some of their cards loosely if not at all until they are needed. Want proof? When was the last time the Progressives (D and R) gave up a single GC item that was irrelevant or useless (see CA)? They don’t. They fight like you just told them to hand over the family riches. They have no intention of giving them up because they ensure their power is retained. When they have no deterrent (see VA at the moment…), they will use it to their advantage. They are looking for opportunities to retain power.

          I get what you are saying, but I think you are looking at the choices a little sideways. I didn’t realize this myself until recently after reading some fundamental books (and still reading them…). The issues you are most concerned about stem from liberty, or rather a lack thereof. The core of your concerns is not equality, but a lack of freedom. Read John Locke- you probably won’t agree with his logic, but the conclusions are that liberty exists when people act within their bounds and obligations (i.e. laws) of their free will. Those bounds and obligations end where others begin. (I don’t do it justice…) The right to self defense is the final arbiter and norm that ensures the other rights exist and liberty is maintained. Want liberty for your social cause? You will need a gun. You want to deal with your property as you desire? You need a gun. Do you want to live life unmolested? Get a gun. Don’t have a gun? What liberty can exist when you have no means to retain it? You can only have that cause when it is not bothersome to the tyrant(s) of the day, or they use it to ensure their retention of power. In the end, it makes you a pawn if they grant you the cause without your ability to ensure it.

          I am now of the opinion that Civics/Gov’t class should start with John Locke and not 1776…

  3. “They gave $1,292,417 of in-kind donations…”

    Just exactly who determines the value of in-kind donations? By definition they aren’t exactly money, and can easily be assigned some arbitrary value.

    For example, advertising in the media probably has a “going rate” for the format, time-slot, etcetera, but who assesses the value of the copy-writers, graphic designers, script-writers, production crew, post-edit et al?

    As another example, use of vehicles – assessed at the hourly rate for equivalent limousine service (high), or calculated as the difference in value of the car between before and after (negligible)?

    I could easily imagine that $1.3 million actually being anywhere up to $5 million or more if ALL of the costs were assessed to maximise the amount reported/declared.

  4. Like with CO, Bloomberg knows VA is cresting over the hill where demographics can make it likely blue for statewide elections. Yes, the legislature may still prove an effective check against anti-gun efforts, but it’s these kinds of “executive actions” that Everytown and their puppets know they can get away with, at least in the short term.

    They’re on record saying the fiats are for “setting cultural norms”. They want to nibble away at the edges until it becomes too onerous to sell firearms or carry outside of your home state, for example.

  5. So they are not only whores, but considering the amount of money involved against the expected return, they are CHEAP whores.

Comments are closed.