April 18, 2013

Why Did These 4 Democrats Vote No on Gun Background Checks?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


When reporters asked Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) why he voted against an amendment to expand gun background checks on Wednesday, he replied, “Montana.” That may sound a bit obtuse, but in February the Sunlight Foundation was already on the case, charting the number of gun businesses per 100,000 people in the states of senators likely to be key to the gun vote. With 120 gun businesses per 100,000 people, Montana topped the list.

And Baucus is up for reelection in 2014. Montana Sen. Jon Tester, also a Democrat, voted for the bill, but he’s not up for reelection until 2018. Along with Baucus, Democrats Mark Begich of Alaska (104 gun businesses per 100,000 people), Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota (62 gun businesses per 100,000 people), and Mark Pryor of Arkansas (45 gun businesses per 100,000 people) also voted no on Wednesday.

The Sunlight Foundation had predicted that Baucus would be one of four Democratic senators most likely to vote against gun reforms for the above reasons as well as the relative number of their constituents who supported President Obama in 2012. Sunlight also focused on Begich, Pryor, and Tim Johnson of South Dakota (66 gun businesses per 100,000 people).

Johnson, who announced in March that he would not run for reelection in 2014, voted for the background check amendment. All of the above senators’ states voted for Mitt Romney for president.

key senators on background checks

Sunlight Foundation

 

The Sunlight Foundation also took a look at how much money senators received from the National Rifle Association during their previous campaign. Baucus, who has an ‘A+’ rating with the NRA, topped the list among Democrats, accepting $7,450 in 2008. In 2010, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has a ‘B’ rating, took in $4,950. Joe Manchin, who has an ‘A’ rating and led compromise efforts on the background check amendment with Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), comes in third with $4,500 in 2012.

Begich and Pryor, who are both up for reelection in 2014, didn’t receive any donations from the NRA in 2008. (Begich doesn’t have an NRA rating; Pryor’s is a ‘C-‘.) Heitkamp, who has an ‘A’ rating, didn’t receive any NRA cash either during her last campaign; she’s not up for reelection until 2018.

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate