Guns & Ammo Network


Collapse bottom bar
Subscribe

Billionaire Bully Bloomberg Bombs Ballots

by Robert W. Hunnicutt   |  November 14th, 2012 3

Billionaire businessman and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has moved his political ambitions to a larger stage, according to theĀ Washington Post.

Bloomberg is using his huge personal fortune to target Congressional races in widespread parts of the county, disbursing $9 million in the last 10 days of the recent election. “This is just the beginning,” said Howard Wolfson, a top aide to Bloomberg who ran Independence USA, a super PAC through which Bloomberg doled out some of his fortune. “On issues like guns and education, Mike Bloomberg is poised to play an even bigger role in advancing a mainstream agenda and influencing elections.”

TheĀ Post reported that $3.3 million in Bloomberg spending doomed NRA A-rated Rep. Joe Baca (R-Calif.), who lost to a Democratic candidate who raised less than 6% of that sum herself. Certain other Bloomberg expenditures failed to pay off so well, but the idea of being in the billionaire bully’s sights is going to give pause to many a wavering candidate.

Those of us who’ve been in the trade for many years have long feared a super-rich anti-gun Dr. Evil type, and George Soros was long thought the best candidate for the role. But Soros has a lot of axes to grind, notably drug legalization. Probably no U.S. politician has been as adamantly anti-gun as Bloomberg, and it appears, sadly, he won’t be fading out of view anytime soon.

This sort of long-distance sniper fire at Congressional and lower-office candidates was pioneered by super-rich homosexuals, who have injected large sums into races as far down as state assembly and senate contests, with the idea of short-circuiting the careers of promising conservative politicians early on, before they can become prominent. Relatively small contributions (by national standards) can be decisive in, say, a state senate race in Nebraska.

Campaign finance reform has typically been a liberal hobbyhorse, with the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson cast in the Dr. Evil role. But with Bloomberg turning his billions against the Second Amendment, the shoe is on the other foot. If billionaires of whatever stripe can buy elections, we are well down the road to being a big Guatemala.

What to do? Hard to say, but you can always patronize SGN advertiser and Bloomberg tormentor Steve Lauer, who offers a “Bloomberg collection” of colors and patterns in his DuraCoat line.

  • Phibes

    "This sort of long-distance sniper fire at Congressional and lower-office candidates was pioneered by super-rich homosexuals, who have injected large sums into races…." (paragraph 5. sentence 1)

    I am NOT a homosexual, but I AM a gun owner and a NYC resident who absolutely detests Bloomberg for way more than just his stance on firearms. However, i fail to see how anyone's sexual orientation has bearing on this issue and i feel that your inclusion of it in your article is not only puzzling and possibly intended as bigotry, but also does a disservice to the image of gun owners as a whole. The majority of non gun people already think that all "gun nuts" are: backward, racist, homophobic, sexist, paranoids who only like to kill things. You seem to only be reinforcing part of that image.

    The sentence would have made perfect sense without the word "homosexual". If you are they type of person who feels strongly about being anti homosexual that is fine, but your subjective feelings should not creep into what should be your objective reporting.

  • RWHunnicutt

    Well, you tell me. Here's an example.
    http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/out-of-state-ga…

    Gay activists are perfectly within the law to contribute wherever and to whomever they wish.. That strategy, which could easily be adopted by the likes of Bloomberg, could greately complicate life for gun owners, since local races in small states can be swayed by huge infusions of outside money. It's perfectly legal, so we have to think of ways to counter it.

    • Phibes

      Agreed and understood! However, my issue was with the usage of the descriptor not the ideas you are expressing.

      Saying the following:

      "This sort of long-distance sniper fire at Congressional and lower-office candidates was pioneered by super-rich [PEOPLE], who have injected large sums into races…."

      conveys the same message without the slightly propagandistic use of the word homosexuals. Describing these "super rich" contributors as homosexuals is moot. They are people who have money and specific political agendas. Their sexual preference should have no bearing…

      However, I don't believe you were trying to be negative towards any specific group and the link you posted better explains your intention behind the sentence, but i still think it is thin ice…

back to top