These Democrats Used to Tout Their NRA Grades. Now They’re Facing the Consequences.

Gun control has become a wedge issue in Democratic primaries.

Curtis Compton/Zuma

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

When the National Rifle Association kicked off its annual conference in Phoenix in 2009, Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, a first-term Democrat whose district covered an Illinois-sized swath of rural Arizona, welcomed its members with open arms. ā€œI am proud that my state is hosting the group that has protected that right for 138 years,ā€ she said in a statement. ā€œThis is a chance for Arizonans to show our nationā€™s leaders we will not let them take away our freedoms.ā€ Kirkpatrick walked the walk, too; earlier that year she had written to Attorney General Eric Holder asking him to shelve a proposal to reinstate the assault weapons ban. When she ran for reelection one year later, she boasted of an A-rating from the NRA.

Now, after an unsuccessful campaign for Senate in 2016, Kirkpatrick is a leading contender to win the Democratic nomination in the smaller and less rural 2nd Congressional District, and sheā€™s singing a far different tune than she was a decade ago. After last monthā€™s school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Kirkpatrick ripped into the organization she once endorsed. ā€œItā€™s not enough to fight for common-sense reforms anymore,ā€ she tweeted. “Itā€™s time to fight the gun companies fighting against those reforms. Itā€™s time to fight the NRA directly.ā€ Not long after, at a candidate forum near Tucson, Kirkpatrick announced her support for a new ban on assault weapons.

ā€œI’ve changed my mind,ā€ she said.

Kirkpatrick, once the model of a rural, pro-gun Democrat, is emblematic of the broader shift within the party. Once home to a vocal minority of NRA-backed elected officials and reluctant to wade into the messy politics of gun rights, the Democratic caucus has taken an increasingly aggressive approach to gun control. And Democratic candidates, fueled by organizations such as Everytown for Gun Safety and an outpouring of grassroots energy and anger, are determined to put gun control on the ballot not just in November, but in 2018 primaries, too. Candidates who once touted their NRA ties have found themselves on the defensive, or they have simply changed their positions with the times. In some cases, it’s both.

As she campaigns for the southern Arizona seat once held by Gabby Giffords, Kirkpatrick is also pushing universal background checks, stricter rules to prevent domestic abusers from getting firearms, and a repeal of the Dickey Amendment, which prevents the the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from researching the effects of gun violence. But in the process sheā€™s come in for sharp criticism from former state Rep. Matt Heinz, the partyā€™s 2016 nominee and her most formidable competition in the primary. Heinzā€™s campaign created a website, ā€œFlagstaff Ann,ā€ devoted to Kirkpatrickā€™s opposition to gun control in her old district and has repeatedly flogged Kirkpatrickā€™s old gun-friendly statements on Twitter.

ā€œIt wasnā€™t just she accidentally tripped and fell into the A-rating and never talked about it,ā€ Heinz says. ā€œShe really tried hard to get that rating and to keep it. She used it against Republicans she ran against in previous campaigns. She was proud of it, and I think that right there is disqualifying.”

“Ann helped them,” he adds. “She carried water for the NRA for a decade or more and now weā€™re all supposed to say, ā€˜Oh great, she one time said the right thing, so never mind, thatā€™s greatā€™? This is gonna keep coming up.ā€

Kirkpatrickā€™s transition to gun control advocate has been rocky at times. She pushed a bill to mandate national concealed-carry reciprocity during her first term but was swept out of office in the tea party wave.

She traces the shift in her thinking to the 2011 shooting that left Giffords severely injured and took the life of John Roll, a federal judge whom Kirkpatrick once clerked for, and the 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. After returning to Congress in 2013, Kirkpatrick backed universal background checks and wrote an op-ed saying that ā€œeverything should be on the table,ā€ including ā€œexamining our assault-weapons laws and our mental-health care system,ā€ but she walked back the assault-weapons comment a few weeks later. Although she continued to tout the A-rating on her website until just before she launched her Senate bid in 2015, she hasnā€™t scored that high in yearsā€”her last rating, in 2016, was a D.

For all her past support, the NRA never returned the favor. It opposed her in 2008 and helped unseat her in 2010 despite the A-rating. Kirkpatrick now touts the D-rating as a badge of pride and boasts that the organization has spent $150,000 over the years trying to defeat her. And while Heinz is making a hard push to tie her to her past statementsā€”and her old districtā€”Kirkpatrick has the support of the local constituent whose words perhaps carries the most weight on this issue: Giffords. The former congresswoman, along with her husband, Mark Kelly, were early endorsers of Kirkpatrickā€™s campaign in the 2nd District.

ā€œAnn Kirkpatrick has more than proven herself as a gun safety champion,ā€ Giffords said in a statement. ā€œWhile in the House, she directly addressed the role of domestic violence in gun tragedies and challenged the ban on the CDC research. She is exactly the kind of fighter we need back in the House to stand up to the gun lobby and enact meaningful reform. I trust Ann to represent me and Arizona on this critical issue.”

Other Democrats who have been past NRA favorites have changed their tune in the far-different 2018  climate. Former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, who is now running for governor, boasted an A-rating from the NRA in 2010. Last week he suggested that policymakers ā€œrethink our approach to military-style weapons used to perpetrate mass shootings.” That open-ended statement wasnā€™t enough for former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a challenger for the Democratic nomination, who called the assault weapons ban (which he backs) ā€œa defining issue in the Democratic primary election.ā€ On Friday, the Kucinich campaign emailed reporters a video of Cordray addressing a “second amendment rally” on the steps of the state capitol in 2010:

In New Jersey, Democratic state Sen. Jeff Van Drew is the favorite to win the nomination in the race to replace retiring Republican Rep. Frank LoBiondo. Van Drew has the support of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and, more importantly, every county chairman in the districtā€”but a 100 percent rating from the NRA, and past donations from the gun lobby, could make things more difficult. At a recent town hall forum he was confronted by a 17-year-old who accused the state senator of lying to her high school government class by asserting he had never taken donations from the NRA:

And in Minnesota, Rep. Tim Walz boasted an A-rating from the NRA for five straight successful campaigns for Congress but has emphasized a slate of ā€œcommon senseā€ gun control measures as he seeks the Democratic nomination for governorā€”including an assault weapons ban. Last fall, he donated $18,000ā€”the amount heā€™d received from the NRA during his careerā€”to a fund for families of veterans, and after the Parkland shooting he published a Minneapolis Star-Tribune op-ed asking voters to ā€œplease understand my full position on guns.ā€

The party-wide shift on gun control has been driven in part by a growing national infrastructure to press the issue. Everytown and its partner organization, Moms Demand Action, as well as groups like Giffords’, have been flooded with donations and volunteers since the Parkland shooting. ā€œWeā€™ve had almost 115,000 new volunteers come into the door this week,ā€ said Shannon Watts, Moms Demandā€™s founder, and Everytown held some 610 different events in the second half of February to bring those volunteers into the fold. The organization is partnering with billionaire Tom Steyer for a voter registration drive focused on gun control, backing candidates who are putting the issue front-and-center, and with its expanding volunteer army, hopes to put candidates on-record about what is quickly shaping up to be a litmus test.

Past dalliances with the NRA arenā€™t necessarily a deal-breaker for these groups. Watts points to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) as an example of a Democrat who has turned the corner on gun control. ā€œShe used to be more aligned with the NRA and now completely rejects them and their agenda and their money and is strongly a proponent for gun safety, and weā€™re very excited to work with her on these efforts,ā€ Watts says. ā€œSo it really depends.ā€

The NRA has not been a passive actor on this shiftā€”itā€™s been actively enabling it. When Walz and Kirkpatrick were first running for Congress, the gun lobby had a noticeably less partisan tilt. As recently as 2010, more than 20 percent of the House candidates who received campaign funds from the NRA were Democrats. Now the NRA supports just two Democrat in the Houseā€”Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar and Georgia Rep. Sanford Bishop. Donā€™t expect that number to grow much this fall.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

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