Barbara Comstock has been bought by the NRA

[Anonymous]

Comstock has accepted $14,850 from the NRA since 2014, the 3rd highest payment for Virginia members of Congress.

Remember this when she claims she’s a moderate or more experienced than whoever she tries to negative campaign against next election.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/nra-donations/?utm_term=.fd6d69a578fc

[Anonymous]

She already knows her days are numbered.

[Anonymous]

Unless she pays it all back today, that makes her a child killer.

[Anonymous]

the Moms Demand Action folks went to her office yesterday. I think Indivisible went, as well.

She's done.

[Anonymous]

She’s a republican.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Comstock has accepted $14,850 from the NRA since 2014, the 3rd highest payment for Virginia members of Congress.

Remember this when she claims she’s a moderate or more experienced than whoever she tries to negative campaign against next election.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/nra-donations/?utm_term=.fd6d69a578fc

thank you so much for this link!

[Anonymous]

$14k is absolutely nothing. You seriously think that's what's holding her feet to the fire.

What people need to understand is that the NRA does NOT derive its influence by making campaign contributions. Its influence comes from the fact that its members are very, very loyal one-issue voters.

If you're thinking that $14k in four years is enough to "buy" a congressman, you're laughably naïve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unless she pays it all back today, that makes her a child killer.

Giving it back would be a hollow political stunt. She’s already used their blood money to win the position and become the incumbent. They bought her early in her electoral political career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$14k is absolutely nothing. You seriously think that's what's holding her feet to the fire.

What people need to understand is that the NRA does NOT derive its influence by making campaign contributions. Its influence comes from the fact that its members are very, very loyal one-issue voters.

If you're thinking that $14k in four years is enough to "buy" a congressman, you're laughably naïve.

Whether the contribution is the reason or just evidence, the important point that she is entirely in the pocket of the NRA and she is part of the reason school children are being shot to death every month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$14k is absolutely nothing. You seriously think that's what's holding her feet to the fire.

What people need to understand is that the NRA does NOT derive its influence by making campaign contributions. Its influence comes from the fact that its members are very, very loyal one-issue voters.

If you're thinking that $14k in four years is enough to "buy" a congressman, you're laughably naïve.

Whether the contribution is the reason or just evidence, the important point that she is entirely in the pocket of the NRA and she is part of the reason school children are being shot to death every month.

When voters in her district have the option to vote for someone who didn’t receive contributions from the NRA, they will take it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$14k is absolutely nothing. You seriously think that's what's holding her feet to the fire.

What people need to understand is that the NRA does NOT derive its influence by making campaign contributions. Its influence comes from the fact that its members are very, very loyal one-issue voters.

If you're thinking that $14k in four years is enough to "buy" a congressman, you're laughably naïve.

Whether the contribution is the reason or just evidence, the important point that she is entirely in the pocket of the NRA and she is part of the reason school children are being shot to death every month.

No, the fact is that there have been enough voters in her district who wanted a representative who supported gun rights. It really is that simple. That's not being "in the pocket." Again, you don't seem to understand how meaningless $14k is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$14k is absolutely nothing. You seriously think that's what's holding her feet to the fire.

What people need to understand is that the NRA does NOT derive its influence by making campaign contributions. Its influence comes from the fact that its members are very, very loyal one-issue voters.

If you're thinking that $14k in four years is enough to "buy" a congressman, you're laughably naïve.

Whether the contribution is the reason or just evidence, the important point that she is entirely in the pocket of the NRA and she is part of the reason school children are being shot to death every month.

Exactly.

The political contributions are small potatoes compared to their massive brainwashing campaigns that appeal to the fearful, small-minded gun nuts.

They push crap like this:

[Anonymous]

Most gun users are fine with reasonable restrictions like background checks. Scalia said the 2nd amendement doesn’t cover assault rifles. The NRA does not represent most gun users’ views so comstock shouldn’t be in their pocket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most gun users are fine with reasonable restrictions like background checks. Scalia said the 2nd amendement doesn’t cover assault rifles. The NRA does not represent most gun users’ views so comstock shouldn’t be in their pocket.

Why aren't reasonable gun owners speaking up and fighting for reasonable changes, like background checks, taxing the sh!t out of guns and ammo, and requiring insurance? These are highly sensible, doable things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$14k is absolutely nothing. You seriously think that's what's holding her feet to the fire.

What people need to understand is that the NRA does NOT derive its influence by making campaign contributions. Its influence comes from the fact that its members are very, very loyal one-issue voters.

If you're thinking that $14k in four years is enough to "buy" a congressman, you're laughably naïve.

They were one of her top 50 contributors for the 2016 election.