There was considerable ballyhoo in yesterday’s Roll Call story about how much the National Rifle Association has spent in the Virginia governor’s race, but the bigger bucks are being spent by billionaire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s super-PAC, according to Politico.
The soon-to-be ex-mayor will reportedly dump $1.1 million into the race to help perennial anti-gunner Terry McAuliffe – a Bill and Hillary Clinton loyalist – to defeat Republican Ken Cuccinelli, who has complained about the “out-of-state” money being spent in this campaign. That’s something Washington gun owners better take note of, because when Bloomberg leaves office at the end of the year, he’s going to be free to do other things, and he has already made it clear that influencing political campaigns to further his gun control agenda is his top priority.
Bloomberg’s big bucks didn’t buy the votes of angry Colorado citizens who successfully tossed two anti-gun Democrats from the state senate last month. But here in the Evergreen State, Bloomberg’s money could play a part in the battle between dueling initiatives.
Politico reports that Bloomberg “has spent more than $15 million on various gun control initiatives.” He also reportedly spent $1 million to help elect anti-gun Newark Mayor Cory Booker to fill the U.S. Senate seat from New Jersey that was left vacant when anti-gunner Frank Lautenberg died earlier this year.
There is an emerging pattern among wealthy liberals to use their personal fortunes to influence firearms policy. Last night’s fund-raiser at a private home in Medina is an example. There was no word Tuesday morning how much was donated to support the efforts of the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibilityand Initiative 594, the 15-page gun control measure now gathering signatures, but it is a safe assumption that it will far exceed donations gun owners have made to support the competing Initiative 591, a single-page measure.
Bloomberg spent approximately the same in Colorado as did the NRA, but his expenditures seem to get much lighter treatment in the press than the NRA’s. Apparently to a largely anti-gun mainstream press, it is wrong for an organization and its members to spend money to protect a civil right, but okay for a billionaire to try to buy it.
There may be a public relations setback looming for Bloomberg, however. ABC News is reporting that Interpol Secretary General Ronald Nobel said earlier today that the “democratic world is at a security crossroads” and that one way to fight back against terrorist attacks would be to arm civilians.
Noble, according to ABC News, said there are two ways to prevent attacks against “soft targets” like shopping malls. One is to make security very tight around such venues – an idea that will not float well with Americans – or allow citizens to carry their own guns for personal protection.
There are already millions of legally-armed American citizens, and with the chief of Interpol suggesting this may be one deterrent to terrorist attacks, Bloomberg and his like-minded fellow travelers, such as McAuliffe and Booker, may have a problem disarming them on the feel-good notion that it’s for their own safety. That would be less convincing than hearing Barack Obama insist that the Obamacare enrollment program is running smoothly.
America has lots of shopping malls and many other soft targets. Mass shootings almost universally occur at such places; so-called “gun free zones” that even included Fort Hood, Tex., where the victims were unarmed by law or regulation.
Should one person, or a small group of people with lots of money, be able to hold more sway over how Americans live than organizations representing millions of people, such as the NRA?
Now would be a good time to answer that question.