Bloomberg Asks Donors to Shut Wallets Over Senators’ Gun Votes

[BainsBane]

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, in a sharp escalation in the battle over gun control, is seeking to punish Democratic senators by taking away the one thing they most need from New Yorkers: money.

On Wednesday, Mr. Bloomberg will send a personal letter to hundreds of the biggest Democratic donors in New York urging them to cut off contributions to the four Democratic senators who helped block a bill in April that would have strengthened background checks on gun purchasers.

The move could inflame tensions that have simmered for weeks between Mr. Bloomberg, who blames the four Democrats for the defeat of the bill, and Democratic Senate leaders, who have privately told City Hall that the attacks can serve only to empower a Republican majority openly hostile to Mr. Bloomberg’s priorities.

By appealing to the Democrats’ financial base, Mr. Bloomberg is exploiting his relationships and prestige among wealthy New Yorkers to disrupt the flow of campaign money to key Democrats whose re-election next year will help determine whether the party retains control of the Senate. No state is more essential to the party’s fund-raising: Sitting Democratic senators and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised $30.4 million from New York donors in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, more than in any other state.

And the four Democratic senators who sided with Republicans filibustering the background check bill — Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota — have raised more than $2.2 million from New York.

More at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/nyregion/bloomberg-urges-no-gifts-to-democrats-who-blocked-gun-bill.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

We need to make sure those who voted against expanded background checks pay for siding with the corporate gun lobby over the American people. 38,000 American lives each year depend on removing obstructionist pols from office. The gun nuts hate Bloomberg because he counters the big money that the gun lobby has used to buy politicians for years. Those donations from the NRA and other gun groups are blood money, made possible by profiting from mass shootings like Sandyhook. It's time to stand up to the single most deadly force in American society today: the gun lobby and their lackeys.

[dkf]

1. He wants only his money to count. Sick.

[BainsBane]

2. What's sick is policies that kill 38,000 Americans a year

And the gun lobby and their lackeys that work assiduously to foment those deaths.

Saving lives is the opposite of sick. It's basic human decency.

[KharmaTrain]

13. Politics Of Unintended Circumstances...

...this "boycott" could do more to harm attempts at gun control that move it forward. Firstly, these candidates will gladly campaign against the "outsider" trying to buy his way into an election thousands of miles away. I know Pryor is already running with that. So it will hurt the people Bloomberg would want to see advance in a primary. Then...fighting against a Pryor or Begich in what are deep red states all but helps elect a rushpublican/teabagger who will be just another toadie for the NRA while those Conservative Democrats can be pressured or persuaded...especially if they know they won't face voters and an angry gun lobby for another 5 plus years. Bloomberg needs to rethink his strategy...

[BainsBane]

3. There is nothing the right hates more

than wealthy Americans who spend their money on the public good rather than selfish profiteering alone. They worship and Koch's and the NRA but despise Michael Bloomberg and George Soros. They hate people who devote funds to anything other than unbridled greed. Money spent by the gun lobby to maintain a bloody status quo is great as far as they are concerned. Money spent to defeat politicians who side with the corporate gun lobby over the public opinion and safety of the American people is perverse, as far as they are concerned. That is what we are dealing with--forces that so despise humanity they can't stand the fact that some work to save lives.

[Skittles]

4. worthy of its own thread

[sarisataka]

5. Do I understand you clearly...

that you are siding with a billionaire, founder of stop and frisk, to hinder Democratic candidates getting elected based on their vote on one issue?

How is this different from advocating for Republican candidates, who will likely have the same stance on the issue at hand?

[BainsBane]

9. I am siding with someone who values human life

over those who profit from and foment murder. Absolutely. The gun lobby is the single greatest evil in American society. Their strangle hold over our political process subverts democracy and the First Amendment. It's also deadly, resulting in 38,000 deaths a year. There is nothing democratic about politicians who ignore 90% public opinion to vote with their corporate masters. I will never stand with those whose policies foment murder. I couldn't live with that level of immorality. Corporate profits and the desire of gun nuts to stock pile obscene amounts of weapons so they can be prepared to kill large numbers of people at once will NEVER be more important than human life, and no amount of arguing will convince me otherwise. It's a basic question of human decency.

[sarisataka]

12. That is your choice

I however would rather have a Democrat in office and work to change their vote than get a Republican who may, or may not vote the way I wish on one issue and definitely not the way I wish on a myriad of other issues.

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. Will you change your stance if those four Democrats survive primary challenges...

...and do not change their views on gun control?

[BainsBane]

22. Thankfully, I don't live in a backward red state

Both of my senators voted to expand background checks, even though there are a lot of hunters and gun owners in this state because most gun owners are decent human beings who understand that regulation is essential to a civilized society. As for the DINOs, I despise those who enable murder, whatever party they pretend to belong to.

[freshwest]

6. Why is he only focusing on the 4 Democrats? What of the GOP who voted that way? Wazzup?

I'd like to ask people some questions:

Isn't Bloomberg himself GOP?

Aren't there other GOP in NYC and the East Coast who are donating to Senators and HoR members who are pushing the NRA line, like Paul?

Is the East Coast so solid on gun regulation that those 4 votes are that offensive to them?

This seems like a strange strategy, since the Democrats likely listening to THEIR constituents when they made their vote, and their replacements will be GOP and fully in favor of no gun control at all.

A more useful approach would be for Bloomberg to fund anti-gun Senate races in those 4 states, unless he's playing a spoiler game here. Weird stuff to me.

Be that as it may, someone needs to kick this can down the road and get it moving, so that's the only reaons I approve.

[BainsBane]

7. I believe he is focusing on Republicans as well

not just Democrats.

[freshwest]

8. That's great, then. Get the ball rolling again. n/t

[BainsBane]

10. He funds opponents of all NRA stooges

most of whom are Republican. This is an appeal to recognize that those who voted against expanded background checks aren't worthy of support by Democratic donors. They don't respect democracy and instead do the bidding of the corporate gun lobby and show complete indifference to the deaths that result from their actions.

[freshwest]

11. This can help transform the party. Good on him, even if he seems to be a one issue guy - sanity.

[sarisataka]

14. How many Democrats has he funded

against Republicans so far? I am aware he has funded Democrats against Democrats but I am not aware of any specific funding of a Democratic candidate against a republican one.

[BainsBane]

15. many

You can probably find the info somewhere. Since the GOP and the NRA are joined at the hip, obviously he's funded Democrats.

[sarisataka]

16. So none that you know of...

I looked and found a lot of info:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg apparently is ignoring an appeal from Democratic leaders to back off his advertising campaign targeting senators who voted against expanded background checks for gun sales.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/bloomberg-guns-control-democrats/2013/05/07/id/503181

Seventeen months before Election Day, Arkansas Democrat Sen. Mark Pryor is already outraged at his opposition. “Disgusting,” he said in a statement released Friday, when a group funded by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg bought $350,000 in television time for an ad aimed at denying Pryor votes among the state’s heavily Democratic African American community.

Pryor isn’t the only one. Senate Democrats up and down the caucus, from West Virginia’s Joe Manchin to Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, have been trying to warn Bloomberg off his strategy of running ads that attack vulnerable Democrats over gun control votes. And it’s not because they disagree with what Bloomberg is after—a new law to require background checks for guns bought online or at gun shows. Rather, they think keeping the Senate in Democratic hands in 2014 is more important than any single Senator’s vote on guns.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/28/bloombergs-gamble-risking-the-democratic-senate-majority-for-gun-control/

The drive intends to counter the NRA. Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Kay Hagan of North Carolina, who are up for re-election next year, are among those Bloomberg’s ads target. The party wants to protect those in gun-friendly states whose losses could cost them control of the Senate.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dems-frown-bloomy-gun-ad-blitz-article-1.1298971#commentpostform

Bloomberg’s Gun-Control Group Eats Its Own With Ads Assassinating Democrats Who Break Rank

http://personalliberty.com/2013/05/09/bloombergs-gun-control-group-eats-its-own-with-ads-assassinating-democrats-who-break-rank/
And on and on...
But not ONE case of support for a Democrat vs. Republican

I will happily acknowledge anyone who can prove me wrong.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. I suspect we'll be enjoying the calls of Gryllis assimilis...

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. And an excellent question, BTW. I'll ask it in GD. The replies should be... interesting.

[BainsBane]

24. I have a better idea

Do a survey in the gungeon of how much money people send to the NRA, nouveau Klan. That should be fun. They we can hear more lies about the NRA being non-partisan. That's always amusing.

[sarisataka]

45. I will not claim the NRA isn't partisan

but they did donate to 64 Democrats. That is better than Bloomberg seems to be.

Your implied question is not unfair...

As I have said before, I have an NRA membership for business purposes. $35/year, basic membership. According to opensecrets.org the NRA gave ~$126k to House and Senate Democrats and ~$894k to Republicans. They favor Republicans roughly 7.5:1, lets round that to 8.
Show me any verifiable support for Democrats against Republicans totaling $126k by Bloomberg and/or MAIG and I will donate $280 ($35*8) to the gun control group(s) of you choice spread over the remainder of this year to offset any of my money that is going to Republicans.

[BainsBane]

19. the majority of his money goes to ads against Republicans

Which you know full well is the case. He said as much this morning on MSNBC. All you have to do is look at who votes with the gun lobby, and that is the entire Republican party. The gun lobby advocates for extreme right wing policies and their lackeys carry the water. Meanwhile, gunners on this site pay dues to the extreme right-wing NRA, nouveau Klan and defend them at every turn. What they hate is the fact that someone is countering the money that the far right NRA spends to promote gun proliferation and foment murder, especially of people of color.

[sarisataka]

20. He said...

well how can it be otherwise

I did find one, Sen. Ayotte of NH. He has spent $400,000 in ads against her, although she isn't up for re-election until 2016

He has spent a lot in Republican areas to promote gun control but not to affect elections, except very indirectly. He is directly targeting 4 Democrats by running ads against them and using his influence to reduce their fundraising.
Number of Republicans up for election he is currently running ads against appears to be zero. He has not told any of his friends to stop donating to Republicans...

I recall this story in the Illiad about a horse...

[BainsBane]

23. Your research skills are lacking

Don't give up your day job. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/nyregion/bloomberg-forming-super-pac-to-influence-2012-races.html
He donates around the issue of gun control and same-sex marriage.

Newslfash: The election was in 2012. But go ahead and distort reality to pretend gun control proponents want to see as many Republicans elected as possible. That's a good one. Who do suppose the anti-choice people contribute to? Oh, right. It must be Democrats. Let's pretend that anti-choice crowd cares about getting Democrats are elected.

[sarisataka]

42. That article lists support for

an independent, Democrat vs another Dem, and a Republican. There is reference to future candidates to be named later.

Still nothing about a Democrat against a Republican, which I have been told happens many times...

[BainsBane]

43. save it

I've just been to the gungeon and at a look at what you all are up to.

[sarisataka]

44. I'm not sure what "you all" are up to...

I am up to questioning a 1%er, founder of stop and frisk, promoter of privatized schools who is mainly focusing on one issue but doesn't seem to be matching actions to words.

I don't the word of a former Republican at face value. He may have a liberal stance on many issues- great, wonderful, attaboy... Yet I will be suspicious and step back to look at the total picture. I do not like what I see.

He says he supports any candidate in favor of gun control but it seems he is strongly focusing his efforts against Democrats. He only seems to help Dems when they are opposing other Dems.

[graham4anything]

28. He is giving money to all anti-gun democratic candidates in 2014

and planning on a full attempt to convert the house democratic

So, yes, he is going all out against the repulbicans, but the media is spinning it on these 4, as there are not many pro-gun democratic candidates.

And he is not saying they should be voted out, he is saying they should switch their vote.

He is saying to them, if you don't vote against guns, the money will dry up. So he is imploring them to vote against guns.

And it started to work, he won 7 of 11 races in 2012

The NRA hates him, and with good reason. He will get rid of guns(and he is with what, 800 other mayors nationwide), and he is working with Joe Biden and Gabbie Giffords.

The only way to defeat the NRA is to use $$$$ more than they have, and that is why I call him the Great Equalizer.

BTW-it's been ignored here, but just 2 days ago, Bloomberg offerered a great plan to protect NYC from the next Hurricane Sandy
pledging 100s of millions to build a system to prevent the water from coming in from the ocean.
There is no one more concerned about the environment, but the gun people and the republicans and Ron Paul distort and hide
these facts.

And sometimes, as mayor, he had duties that the person(he is a liberal from Mass) but his job entails duties
(and the NYC police force is their own entity, and they are a lot better behaved now, than they were when Rudy was in office.
Bloomberg though was always a democratic voter, and he voted for the President twice.
He saw an opening and won as a republican independent but he is a democratic voter and is one of the best in supporting
the arts.
(He was given a special Tony award Sunday for his contributions to making Broadway shine, and people said it would never work,
but he is putting bicycles all over Manhattan (rentals), and he made Broadway between 42-46street off limits to traffic, and its like
a concrete beach there.

It is amazing it has worked so well, and there were not the traffic jams people expected.

[freshwest]

30. Thanks. We never hear anything good about him, but he's so anti-NRA. He should get props for that.

Yougave a good list of actions he's taking, especially protecting the city from storms. Just curious...

Diane Feinstein was in the building when Harvey Milk was murdered. So she really knows what being in a mass shooting is like, unlike the majority of legislators, I suppose.

I'm glad to hear he's working to change Congress on this issue. I have a question for you.

Is he religious, or was there some moment in his life that made him feel so strongly about guns?

[Cha]

25. Bloomberg backed Scott Brown over Elizabeth Warren in the Mass primary.

because he liked his gun stance.

Fortunately, he couldn't pull Scott out of his pit.

Bloomberg's aide would not bite on whether Warren's history of advocating for Wall Street reforms also influenced his decision making. Warren was a crucial advocate for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, while the mayor's eponymous financial data services company counts Wall Street's biggest banks among its largest clients.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/240591-mayor-bloomberg-endorses-

Glad he's putting his money where his mouth is now, though.

thanks Bains

[BainsBane]

26. That was a bad move

I suspect his investment portfolio influenced that decision.

[Cha]

27. Exactly. Me thinks if Brown had gotten

in.. he'd be a wildcard even on sensible gun laws.

[graham4anything]

31. I suspect you were wrong. He did that because at the time, Brown said he was FOR major gun control

and at that point, Warren was NOT in the race, and no one else was doing anything.

And this year he is backing Markey.

It is all about the gun

And guns are NOT partisian.

Guns and bullets kill everyone as witness in liberal Mass. Matters little left,right,center.

And as we saw it was FOUR DEMOCRATIC senators that stopped cold any gun control

2014 is not 2008, but its of course a nice way to get NO control by hating Bloomberg.
The NRA hates him.

btw, check out what charity he has donated tens of millions too- they are all liberal causes
arts and environment

and he has vowed and got others to agree, to give away ALL his money by the time he dies.
And his mother lived to 102.

[graham4anything]

32. he had already backed Brown, long before Warren gave an answer on guns, or even entered the race.

So it had nothing at all to do with Warren, as she was not in the race at the time.

[Cha]

34. Elizabeth Warren won the Dem Primary on June 2, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-seeks-to-revive-senate-campaign.html?_r=0

Bloomberg backs the NRA candidate, Scott Brown against Elizabeth Warren

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/07/6292816/bloomberg-backs-scott-brown-nras-candidate-against-elizabeth-warren

It doesn't much matter because in spite of Bloomberg's Fundraiser for Scott Brown.. the Big Money didn't help a damn bit. Massachusetts was and is smarter than that. 2010 was an abberation.

[graham4anything]

36. It's about the guns. and in 2008, heavily endorsed President Obama

Months earlier, Brown did something for gun control, and that was the basis, it was thanking him for his view on guns.

Guns are not party specific.

Guns kill left/right/center/extremists

And in 2008 and 2012, Bloomberg's major endorsement of Obama both times helped convince those stragglers to give Obama an overwhelming landslide both times.
And he is working WITH Vice President Obama (at the behalf of President Obama) on ridding the streets of guns

He is btw, far to the left of Bill Clinton, and on great terms with both Obama and Hillary.

[Live and Learn]

29. I stopped reading at Bloomberg. nt

[pintobean]

33. The teabaggers should love this.

De-funding incumbent Democrats in red states - more Bloomy brilliance.

How do you like your tea Mike, no sugar?

[BainsBane]

35. Cool story, bro

[graham4anything]

37. 100% wrong reading. Better the democratic candidates get rid of guns. Wellness rules. Guns don't.

[pintobean]

39. I read it correctly

Your buddy is out to do harm to the party over a single issue. I'd recommend getting off that bandwagon before election season begins.

The move could inflame tensions that have simmered for weeks between Mr. Bloomberg, who blames the four Democrats for the defeat of the bill, and Democratic Senate leaders, who have privately told City Hall that the attacks can serve only to empower a Republican majority openly hostile to Mr. Bloomberg’s priorities.

[graham4anything]

40. The NRA would love it if those against guns would go away.

and all the opposition to Eric Holder and President Obama is 100% about guns and always was.

Time to audit the NRA and take away their tax free exemption.


and at least all democratic voters 100% agree-the Cornyn amendment is the worst single thing that could go through,
so we must be vigiliant that that is defeated (unless of course,NYC is the nationwide standard.)

[KharmaTrain]

38. Pay In The Primaries...Not The General...

...Bloomberg is no Democrat and this antic will do more to energize his opponents that help further much needed gun reform. I have no problem with supporting primary challengers but there's not in a general. Yes, party does mean something here when we're talking about having Turtleman as the Majority Leader and the teabaggers in control of both Houses. At least a blue dog Democrat can be reasoned with...especially one that doesn't have to face re-election for another 5 plus years...a rushpublican will kiss the NRA's ass.

The one thing we can learn from the teabaggers is how they've become a force within their corrupt and inept party that has forced the politicians inside the beltway to take their issues very seriously. A progressive caucus with more teeth along with Democratic control of both houses is the best chance for any gun control legislation to happen...

[BainsBane]

41. Meanwhile, some seek to put more guns in circulation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=123735

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. Better that than threatening to support Greens, Pubbies, and independents...

if a Democratic candidate is not antigun enough to suit you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2998618

If you cannot in good conscience avoid working against (or at least remain silent about) a progun
Democrat that's running for office in a general election, this is not the message board for you. This is Democratic Underground, not Antigun Underground

You are perfectly free to feel as you feel and act as you see fit, on your own time.

However,if you should advocate acting against a Democrat in a general election here, you will be alerted on
as that is a TOS violation.

(Note: I modified that to make it clear I am talking about general elections, not Democratic primaries)