Taking one cent, ever, from the NRA should disqualify you from ever running for office as a Democrat


Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/02/23/jeff-van-drew-ammosexual-2.html


You’re damn right Cory!


OK, for sake of discussion: Illinois’ two Democratic senators, Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, have received a total of $50 in financial support from the NRA according to OpenSecrets.org.

Does that count considering the NRA spent $3,470 in indirect support for opponents of Durbin and $6,422 in indirect support for opponents of Duckworth? Do we even know if they were aware of the contributions at the time? And can we keep Duckworth if she sends her $25 back? Because it’s been fun watching her rip Trump a new one.


Agreed. I’d go further and say that Democratic candidates should be required to pledge that they won’t take another cent from the priests of Moloch and, if they’ve taken any funds in the past, immediately donate the sum total to a charity related to reducing the proliferation of firearms in the U.S. The DNC could institute that rule by next Monday, assuming it has the self-interest of all the large companies rushing to cut their affiliations with the NRA.


Yes, Duckworth is worth it.



Here’s the first article that made the connection:



Plus I’m wondering if the NRA’s donation in that case was just a tactic so they could pretend they were supporting both parties, or have something to hold over her later when progressives like us decided to come after everyone who took their blood money. They clearly didn’t actually want her to win, and I like to think that $25 wasn’t enough to actually buy her influence.


Blasphemous rumors! OK, yeah the NRA would eat a mile long line of poo poo to dirty anyone that is in their way.


Fuck that centrist Democrat shit! Unbelievable.


Can we leave the ideological purity tests for the other side, please?


me? not a democrat but consider myself a liberal… not a member of the NRA, but was nearly three decades ago. i am a current member of the TSRA (texas state rifle assn).

i hate to tell you this, but there are a lot… an absolute shit ton of liberals and democrats who enjoy firearms and many of them are ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment. We simply wish the “well regulated” part of it was brought into the conversation.


Not in this case, no.


This isn’t about “ideological purity”, this is about not taking money from an organisation that not only enables mass murderers by insisting that powerful firearms be made available to everyone (via the industry it exists to lobby for) but also takes a consistent right-wing stance on any political issue you might name. It makes no practical political sense for a Dem candidate to take its dime.

Also, a Democrat (or a liberal or progressive) can support and enjoy the responsible use of firearms without being a member of or taking money from that toxic organisation.


Maybe they figured it would cost the campaign a buck or two just to process the donation, but then, why not just donate $1.00? Perhaps the campaign has configured a minimum amount?


But that Bernie Sanders is just the bee’s knees!


Headline correction:

Taking one cent, ever, from the NRA should disqualify you from ever running for office as a Democrat Human Being


Personally I’m absolutely in favor of politicians of any party being allowed to demonstrate which anti-human organizations they will represent when elected.



Not all lefties, DFLers, or Democrats are anti-gun or even anti-NRA. Apply this as some ideological test and you’ll just alienate a vast number of DFL farmers, hunters, sportsmen and women, police, etc. and even those who believe in the NRA’s vision of the 2nd amendment.

I happen to think there are many other prerequisite disqualifications for Democrats that should come long before any dalliance with the NRA. Such as any positive vote for warrantless wiretapping, anti-whistleblowing, anti-public domain, or anti-first amendment bills.

Don’t even get me started on the lack of self reflection about how the DNC operated last election.

This is not the hill the wounded DFL should die on.


What, you think winning elections by building coalitions amongst people who aren’t 100% in agreement might allow progress to be made on shared goals, and people shouldn’t trumpet rhetoric that drives voters into the arms of opponents who are utterly morally reprehensible but pragmatic enough to be more welcoming of dissidents?

That’s some hippie talk, son, you gotta get that outta your system. It’s not the 60s any more.