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