The Bloomberg buyout

I couldn’t oppose guns more vehemently if I tried.  

Civilians should not carry weapons designed to kill people. Period. The second amendment explicitly limits that right to a well-organized militia, which we have: the United States military. Far too many innocent lives have been lost at gunpoint to justify an assault rifle hobby anymore.

With that in mind, it grieves me to oppose New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s $50 million donation meant to deter the National Rifle Association’s efforts to minimize gun control, but I do.

It’s the same predicament that has sparked national debates for decades on campaign finance and donation caps for corporations: is it constitutional to regulate the amount of money a single person or corporation can donate to a candidate?

Those waters are murky. It’s easy to feel as though our nation’s laws are being written by the rich, rather than the people.

There are those who assert that Bloomberg’s actions are justifiable because the
$50 million is drawn from his personal fortune.

But the sheer quantity of the donation and the enormous amount of anti-gun labor it will enable cannot be ignored.

The money will fund a grassroots operation that includes two activism groups, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. Bloomberg hopes to tap into the middle-aged, family-friendly constituency by emphasizing the danger guns pose to children.

Obviously, activist groups are part of what makes America strong. Organizing passionate citizens around a cause that’s relevant to them and enacting change is certainly free speech.

Enormous monetary donations, however, are a different story.

CNN reports that “influencing those in charge of writing gun policy will be the ultimate goal of the organizations,” which means that essentially Bloomberg’s vast wealth allots him more influence — easily translated into votes — than the average citizen.

Therein lies the injustice.

Bloomberg is also seeking 501(c)(4) status for his organizations, which, if achieved, would allow them to raise unlimited amounts of money to influence voters and motivate them to vote in November.

I despise the ways in which gun violence has torn our country apart, especially in recent decades. I believe the true tragedy lies in the preventable nature of these crimes. I vehemently oppose the NRA and would be more than willing to join a political action committee to stop them.

But well-intentioned though it may be, Bloomberg’s massive donation and grassroots fundraising efforts are so large, they misrepresent the American people. We cannot support unlimited campaign donations solely when we side with those receiving the money.

I feel compelled to denounce Bloomberg’s $50 million because I feel uneasy that one wealthy citizen has the financial power to shape legislation despite the popular opinion. Until the rest of America gets on board with gun control, we will simply have to count on background checks a little longer.


sbkissel@indiana.edu