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


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.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight 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

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.