Following the horrific shooting of innocent civilians at an Orlando nightclub on June 12, many members of the media were quick to point out the National Rifle Association’s heavy-handed influence and how it contributes to the inaction of elected officials on gun-control issues.
It’s no secret that many members of Congress use the gun issue to raise money, but what is rarely reported is that many of these members actually spend campaign money on firearms. In fact, an analysis by CREW using campaign finance data from CQ MoneyLine found that since the beginning of the 2014 election cycle, 13 members of the House and Senate have spent at least $25,526 in campaign funds to purchase guns, ammunition or tickets to gun shows and shooting events.
Why would members of Congress use campaign money to purchase firearms? Well, these members do it for a variety of reasons, but mostly it is a fundraising gimmick. In some cases, the campaigns buy the guns and then give them as gifts to the candidate’s supporters. For example, in June 2013, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) bought $2,230 in “gifts for speaker” from Turnbull Restoration & Manufacturing Company in upstate New York, which sells and restores a wide variety of pistols, handguns, rifles and shotguns.
Candidates also use guns as a feature at campaign events, putting them up for raffles or auctioning them off to bidders. In 2014, Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX) paid Turnbull $5,060 for “silent auction items” while Sen. Susan Collins’ (R-ME) campaign bought a shotgun from a firearms distributor for $1,055 for a raffle. At the end of last year, Sen. Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign made headlines by auctioning off a Remington 12-gauge shotgun engraved with his campaign logo. The campaign reported spending $639 for “donor memento-personalized engraving” at Dawson Precision, Inc., an arms dealer in Florence, TX. In November 2015, Ryan Zinke’s (R-MT) campaign spent $545 at a gun store in Billings, MT for a “fundraising event.” He later sent an email to campaign supporters saying he would give away “a signed AR-15 to one of my strongest supporters.” In December 2013, Rep. Stephen Fincher’s (R-TN) campaign paid $632 to Academy Sports for “Fundraiser Gun Purchase.”
In spring of last year, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) announced his campaign would raffle off an AR-15 assault rifle that was autographed by rock-star-turned-pundit and NRA board member Ted Nugent. The campaign reported a $1,010 expense at Shooter’s Outlet in Arcadia, IA, which was described as a “raffle item.” According to Rep. King’s Facebook page, a man named Trent, who was described as a Ted Nugent fan, won the AR-15. That fall, Rep. King’s campaign again raffled off a gun – this time a Henry .30/.30 rifle signed by Republican presidential candidates Sen. Ted Cruz, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Sen. Rick Santorum. It also reported spending $1,375 at Shooter’s Outlet on the “raffle item.” While the campaign disavows any and all liability associated with the weapon, the official rules for the events do not mention any requirement for the prize winners to undergo a background check.
In many cases, campaigns report in-kind contributions of firearms they then use to auction off to supporters at events. In September of 2014, for instance, Sen. James Inhofe’s (R-OK) joint fundraising committee accepted $2,269 worth of shotguns and $2,976 of ammunition in in-kind contributions that were both labeled “event expense.” Rep. Jason Smith (R-IL) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) also reported in-kind contributions of firearms that were used for raffles.
Other members hold gun-themed events at shooting ranges or gun clubs. Rep. Richard Nugent (R-FL) did not buy guns, but spent $644 of campaign money on a “shooting event” at a trap and skeet shooting range in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) also spent $5,550 at a gun club in Houston, TX for an “event deposit” and “balance for event (range & firearm rentals, ammo).” Rep. Duncan D. Hunter’s (R-CA) campaign listed a $291 expenditure described only as “ammo”, though it is unclear if this was in connection to a campaign event.
CREW also found firearms purchases by federal candidates who lost, as well as by state-level politicians and local party committees and PACs not included in the total tally.
Many lesser-known congressional challengers are also using gun giveaways as a tactic to attract attention for their campaigns and obtain e-mail addresses for their fundraising lists. In March 2016, for instance, Tim Neville, a Senate candidate in Colorado, spent $699 at a gun store for a “firearm giveaway” in which he offered the chance to win an AR-15 to anyone who caucused for him. Johnny Tacherra, a House candidate in California’s 16th district, held a “2nd Amendment BBQ” at a gun dealership in which anyone who made the maximum contribution of $2,700 to his campaign received one of two models of Smith & Wesson handguns. The campaign reported paying Full Spectrum Firearms $3,632 for “event prizes.”
These gun giveaways exist at the potentially tricky intersection of gun laws and campaign finance laws. If these politicians are not careful, they could find themselves in legal hot water. For example, some states require anyone transferring a firearm to someone else to conduct a background check before doing so. Some campaigns are cautious and take steps to assure that the weapon is technically given away by a licensed dealer who conducts a criminal background check, but it is unclear if all of these campaigns follow the proper procedures. The campaigns also need to take care not to exceed contribution limits by accepting in-kind contributions of high value while also properly disclosing the purchase of any firearms.
In giving guns away, these politicians are successfully raising money for their campaigns, but they do run a worst-case scenario risk that one of the weapons could fall into the wrong hands and perhaps even be used in a crime or act of violence. Campaigns have gone ahead with using firearms to raise money nonetheless, showing how important and lucrative guns are to them and their campaign coffers.
More Blog Posts
Earlier this week, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed IRS complaints against 10 politically active non-profit groups that sought to influence elections across the country in 2014. Many of the groups violated their tax-exempt status by impermissibly making politics their primary activity while others significantly underreported their political activity. CREW also filed complaints with the Department of Justice against six of the organizations that appear to have made false statements to the IRS about their political activity. Read More ›
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) has come under fire for charging thousands of dollars in personal expenses to his campaign, leading to FEC and Ethics complaints from CREW. Beyond the expenses he has admitted to being inappropriate—video games, oral surgery, a garage door opener—we’ve also found issues with what his campaign classifies as “Food & Beverages.” Read More ›
Former Jacksonville, FL City Council candidate Mincy Pollock was recently pulled into the scandal surrounding Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) and sham nonprofit One Door for Education. Pollock was visited by federal agents following allegations from his former business partner concerning checks that Pollock wrote from their business last year in a dizzying sequence of suspicious money movement—including two to One Door. A CREW investigation reveals that Pollock may have used One Door to indirectly fund a state ballot initiative expanding Medicaid, raising new questions about how One Door operated and why the One Door money was used to support the initiative. Read More ›
In the Federalist Papers, James Madison noted that “if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Of course, he recognized we were not to be governed by “angels,” but by “men,” and so laws were necessary to “oblige [the government] to control itself.” According to U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell, however, Madison needn’t have concerned himself: we could have just been ruled by “Montana politicians,” who the Judge found were “relatively incorruptible.” Read More ›
Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a Koch network-connected section 501(c)(4) nonprofit group, is well-known for its grassroots organizing and campaign-style political activity. In 2014, however, AFP tepidly made plans to try out a more traditional, insider influence tool: lobbying Congress. Read More ›
In June 2014, Richard Berman, the infamous president of corporate public relations firm Berman and Company, pitched a room full of energy company executives on his team’s work in fighting an anti-fracking initiative in Colorado. Noting that critics often want to know the names of the donors behind his campaigns, Berman said he runs all his work “through nonprofit organizations that are insulated from having to disclose donors,” allowing “total anonymity” for his clients. Read More ›
May 18, 2016 | Richard Berman