Do you remember that kid, David Hogg, the-Parkland-shooting-survivor-turned-anti-gun-activist? Yesterday I received an email from Val Demings’ Senate campaign with his name on it. He writes – or some hired-gun Democratic fundraising specialist writes:
“Over his entire political career, Marco Rubio has taken $3,303,355 from the gun lobby. In exchange, he’s voted against commonsense gun safety reform every step of the way…”
The words “In exchange” make it sound – and, I presume, are consciously intended to make it sound – as if Rubio’s vote is for sale and that he has been bought and paid for by the gun lobby. By that logic, if a “pro-choice” congressman or senator takes money from Emily’s List or NARAL, then that politician can be accused of supporting “abortion rights” legislation in order to receive – “in exchange” for – a pot of gold come election time.
Maybe that happens. Maybe the offer of campaign cash is what sways candidates and office-holders to vote the way their big-bucks donors want them to vote.
But then again, isn’t it more likely that a candidate or office-holder who sincerely holds a pro-abortion or anti-abortion position, or who already favors gun restrictions or opposes gun restrictions, is being given campaign contributions not as a bribe or a payoff, but rather to support putting someone in office or keeping someone in office who believes in the same cause their donors believe in?