These Members Of Congress Used Campaign Funds To Buy Guns

[Paté]

These Members Of Congress Used Campaign Funds To Buy Guns

More than a dozen Republican members of Congress used campaign contributions to buy guns, ammunition or tickets to gun-related events, a public interest group said Wednesday.

An analysis of campaign finance records shows that since 2014, 13 members of the House or Senate spent a combined $25,526 from their campaign coffers to purchase “guns, ammunition or tickets to gun shows and shooting events,” according to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, a nonpartisan nonprofit.
Mark Kauzlarich / Reuters Sen. Ted Cruz pauses before heading further down field during the Col. Bud Day Pheasant Hunt hosted by Rep. Steve King outside of Akron, Iowa, Oct. 31, 2015.
While campaign dollars are more typically spent on expenses like advertising, travel and legal fees, CREW said lawmakers buy guns as campaign gimmicks or for fundraisers.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) last year spent more than a $1,300 on firearms autographed by gun fans, including musician and NRA board member Ted Nugent and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). The weapons were later raffled off.

Gun giveaways can be legally murky, CREW said, depending on how strictly lawmakers adhere to state rules on the transfer of gun ownership.

Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) spent $2,750 in October at a Houston gun club, which provided event space, gun rental and ammunition for a campaign appearance.

Other lawmakers who CREW said spent campaign money on gun-related items and events were Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas), Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.), Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Rep. Jason Smith (R-Ill.), Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Rep. Richard Nugent (R-Fla.), Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-Calif.), and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

A CBS News poll this month found that while Americans’ overall gun ownership is at its lowest point since 1978 — 36 percent of people reported having guns, compared with 51 percent nearly 40 years ago — gun sales are at record highs.

Falling gun ownership amid record high gun transactions and gun manufacturing suggest existing gun owners are acquiring even more firearms. The same CBS poll found 19 percent of Americans who live in gun-owning households have 10 or more guns.

The NRA has proven to be a reliable supporter of candidates who further the lobby’s interests. During the 2014 election cycle, the NRA and its committees contributed $809,462 to individual campaign coffers. That figure was dwarfed by the $3.3 million the NRA spent on lobbying, and $27 million in “outside contributions” for committees and Super PACs.

[RumRunner]

News alert... politician uses campaign funds to host a wine tasting fundraiser event. Sources indicate this politician may have actually purchased a bottle of wine and auctioned it off..

The people who write and read this sort of thing as unbiased news are mentally defective and/or treasonous.

[HabsFan]

I would rather the money be spent on this than hookers and blow!

[iceburg]

And the Democraps are model Politicians ? ..We can dig up a ton of trash from illegal gun trafficking to drunken protesting with a hand gun, to shooting the girlfriends car with his shotgun ..These were all stories in the news. ..They all suck..

[nymet100]

News alert... politician uses campaign funds to host a wine tasting fundraiser event. Sources indicate this politician may have actually purchased a bottle of wine and auctioned it off..

The people who write and read this sort of thing as unbiased news are mentally defective and/or treasonous.

I actually found it interesting. Why would someone who claims to be a gun enthusiast need to purchase a gun as a campaign prop? Why not just use one of your guns that you're so proud of?

Maybe one or more of these candidates who we are told was trying to save our 2A rights, isn't actually a gun owner? Maybe when our last hope to save 2A rights lost his primary it didn't actually affect gun rights all that much.

[LIChris]

Why not just use one of your guns that you're so proud of?

So what your saying is if you had an opportunity to buy another gun, you would turn it down?
I'm looking at getting a 25-06 for a western hunt that I'm not even planning for two years, let alone actually going!

[Barnslayer]

I actually found it interesting. Why would someone who claims to be a gun enthusiast need to purchase a gun as a campaign prop? Why not just use one of your guns that you're so proud of?

Maybe one or more of these candidates who we are told was trying to save our 2A rights, isn't actually a gun owner? Maybe when our last hope to save 2A rights lost his primary it didn't actually affect gun rights all that much.

If nothing else, there's no liability angle in giving away a brand new rifle…. as opposed to your own used one.

[nymet100]

So what your saying is if you had an opportunity to buy another gun, you would turn it down?
I'm looking at getting a 25-06 for a western hunt that I'm not even planning for two years, let alone actually going!

If it's paid for by the campaign and you use it for personal use, that's a misappropriation of funds. It's essentially stealing from your own campaign which donors (at least in theory) are contributing to help you win an election, not to buy you a new rifle.

My only point is that some of these people need to buy props to lure in 1 issue voters.

[Barnslayer]

If it's paid for by the campaign and you use it for personal use, that's a misappropriation of funds. It's essentially stealing from your own campaign which donors (at least in theory) are contributing to help you win an election, not to buy you a new rifle.

My only point is that some of these people need to buy props to lure in 1 issue voters.

You say 1 issue voter like it's a bad thing. I think if all American gun owners were 1 issue Second Amendment voters we would have far better leadership than we do have…… on just about all issues.
If protecting part of the Constitution isn't important enough, what is? Any leader that would marginalize the Constitution is not going to do right by America in other matters.

[nymet100]

You say 1 issue voter like it's a bad thing. I think if all American gun owners were 1 issue Second Amendment voters we would have far better leadership than we do have…… on just about all issues.
If protecting part of the Constitution isn't important enough, what is? Any leader that would marginalize the Constitution is not going to do right by America in other matters.

It is bad in the sense that if you're only looking at what the right hand is doing, it makes it easier to get conned. You watch the right hand while the left takes your wallet. Don't be blinded by the videos of them with sparkly new guns as they proclaim their life long dedication to the sport. Just don't get played by those who need to buy a gun as a prop for a campaign pic or video is my only point.

During a primary or in other parts of the country a general election, they know their demos and they know there are a lot of gun owners so they rush to buy a gun with campaign funds, claim they're a gun owner then once they're in office they suddenly want "common sense gun laws". If they had to buy a gun with campaign funds, we shouldn't be surprised when they sell out. Huffpo did us a favor by pointing this out. Yes their intent was to harm Republicans, but what they really did was reveal RINOs. They revealed those who shouldn't even be running on the Republican line in the first place. Don't be stupid and write this off as some liberal smear campaign. Yea, sure the liberals think this is frightening, but they should really be finding comfort in the fact that Republicans are selling out on gun rights.

[Barnslayer]

It is bad in the sense that if you're only looking at what the right hand is doing, it makes it easier to get conned. You watch the right hand while the left takes your wallet. Don't be blinded by the videos of them with sparkly new guns as they proclaim their life long dedication to the sport. Just don't get played by those who need to buy a gun as a prop for a campaign pic or video is my only point.

During a primary or in other parts of the country a general election, they know their demos and they know there are a lot of gun owners so they rush to buy a gun with campaign funds, claim they're a gun owner then once they're in office they suddenly want "common sense gun laws". If they had to buy a gun with campaign funds, we shouldn't be surprised when they sell out. Huffpo did us a favor by pointing this out. Yes their intent was to harm Republicans, but what they really did was reveal RINOs. They revealed those who shouldn't even be running on the Republican line in the first place. Don't be stupid and write this off as some liberal smear campaign. Yea, sure the liberals think this is frightening, but they should really be finding comfort in the fact that Republicans are selling out on gun rights.

Not at all. You have to evaluate the person as a whole. That's how you get a handle on who they are. But push comes to shove, the more pro-2nd guy is usually the more ethical one. If he trusts in the Constitution, that's a good indicator. Of course the more consistant, the better. And no, you get zero guarantees on how good he'll keep his word, but the one that is anti 2nd or weak on it usually do keep their word to be bad for us....just like they said they would.
No brainer this time around. One is definitely guaranteed bad news. The other.... I'll take my chances with Trump.

[NRATC53]

I actually found it interesting. Why would someone who claims to be a gun enthusiast need to purchase a gun as a campaign prop? Why not just use one of your guns that you're so proud of?

Maybe one or more of these candidates who we are told was trying to save our 2A rights, isn't actually a gun owner? Maybe when our last hope to save 2A rights lost his primary it didn't actually affect gun rights all that much.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) last year spent more than a $1,300 (OMG!/Sarc. Some of us spend more than that on ONE gun!) on firearms autographed by gun fans, including musician and NRA board member Ted Nugent and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). The weapons were later raffled off.
(Oh, they spent money on something to make more campaign money. So?)
Gun giveaways can be legally murky, CREW said, depending on how strictly lawmakers adhere to state rules on the transfer of gun ownership. (Really? Casting baseless comments trying to intimate that something illegal is taking place.)

Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) spent $2,750 in October at a Houston gun club, which provided event space, gun rental and ammunition for a campaign appearance.
(And if they were golfing?)
If you are a gun enthusiast why would you give away your own guns? I fail to see the point you are trying to make

[nymet100]

Not at all. You have to evaluate the person as a whole. That's how you get a handle on who they are. But push comes to shove, the more pro-2nd guy is usually the more ethical one. If he trusts in the Constitution, that's a good indicator. Of course the more consistant, the better. And no, you get zero guarantees on how good he'll keep his word, but the one that is anti 2nd or weak on it usually do keep their word to be bad for us....just like they said they would.
No brainer this time around. One is definitely guaranteed bad news. The other.... I'll take my chances with Trump.

Sooooo....you shouldn't be a 1 issue voter? I'm not sure where you stand on this.

And I'm in full agreement, generally speaking the more pro-2A a candidate legitimately is, the more likely they are to be trustworthy. That brings me back to my original and only point, that some of those listed are not legitimately pro-2A, they are buying guns to look pro-2A. I have no problem with hosting campaign events at gun ranges or even purchasing a gun with campaign funds perse, With the exception of the gun which was raffled (presumably to make more money) I just don't understand how a gun is a campaign expense unless a candidate who doesn't own a gun needs a gun to get votes.

The raffled gun may or may not fall into this category. I don't have enough information to answer that. However, buying a gun , a hunting vest, etc. so you can use it as a prop because you do not have one of your own is disingenuous and indicates the candidate is likely to sell out. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about:

During a televised debate, Cruz’s Democratic opponent questioned whether Cruz owned a gun and twice asked whether he was an avid hunter. Cruz responded that he was a gun owner, but declined to say how often he hunted. When pressed afterward, he said the question was a distraction from the race’s real issues.

While it is true that the frequency Cruz hunts with is irrelevant to how supportive he would be of gun rights, his answer suggests that he is not being honest about his interest in hunting and only claimed to be an avid hunter who doesn't get to hunt as much as he'd like despite lengthy congressional recesses solely for the purpose of gaining votes. Basically he's using campaign funds to make him look like a gun enthusiast simply to persuade people to vote for him as opposed to being a legitimate gun enthusiast who would already own a gun and have a dirty hunting vest after he hunts.

[Barnslayer]

Sooooo....you shouldn't be a 1 issue voter? I'm not sure where you stand on this.

And I'm in full agreement, generally speaking the more pro-2A a candidate legitimately is, the more likely they are to be trustworthy. That brings me back to my original and only point, that some of those listed are not legitimately pro-2A, they are buying guns to look pro-2A. I have no problem with hosting campaign events at gun ranges or even purchasing a gun with campaign funds perse, With the exception of the gun which was raffled (presumably to make more money) I just don't understand how a gun is a campaign expense unless a candidate who doesn't own a gun needs a gun to get votes.

The raffled gun may or may not fall into this category. I don't have enough information to answer that. However, buying a gun , a hunting vest, etc. so you can use it as a prop because you do not have one of your own is disingenuous and indicates the candidate is likely to sell out. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about:



While it is true that the frequency Cruz hunts with is irrelevant to how supportive he would be of gun rights, his answer suggests that he is not being honest about his interest in hunting and only claimed to be an avid hunter who doesn't get to hunt as much as he'd like despite lengthy congressional recesses solely for the purpose of gaining votes. Basically he's using campaign funds to make him look like a gun enthusiast simply to persuade people to vote for him as opposed to being a legitimate gun enthusiast who would already own a gun and have a dirty hunting vest after he hunts.

Showmanship. Any candidate that shows up in jeans and rolled up sleeves though he lives in suits is doing the same thing. Doubly so the ones that kiss babies or say each bit of food they are given at some diner "tastes great".
The same thing might be true of Gary Johnson showing up wearing a peace symbol. Who knows?