Endangered Republican Falsely Claims He Hasn’t Taken NRA Money Recently

The NRA has donated to Rep. Steve Knight three times this cycle.

The March for Our Lives rally in San Francisco, March 24, 2018Josh Edelson/AP

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

Update, 9/21/2018, 12:30 p.m. ET: After ignoring multiple requests for comment from Mother Jones, Knight campaign spokesperson Matt Rexroad told The Santa Clarita Valley Signal on Wednesday, September 19 that the Knight campaign had deposited the NRA’s $2,500 July contribution by mistake, and that it had been returned to the NRA in recent weeks. Rexroad also said the campaign had declined the NRA’s $1,500 May contribution by way of not depositing it. The NRA’s latest PAC filing―which was submitted yesterday and reflect the PAC’s spend through the end of August―still do not reflect a rejection or refund of either donation. Mother Jones has asked the Knight campaign to comment further on the details of the refund of July donation.

An endangered Republican congressman from Southern California wasn’t telling the truth last month when he claimed that he hadn’t received any recent donations from the National Rifle Association, federal campaign finance records reveal.

During an August 23 episode of Talk of Santa Clarita, a local politics podcast, Rep. Steve Knight was asked if he’d “taken any funds from the NRA recently.” Knight—who represents suburban Los Angeles County—replied, “No.” When the host followed up to specifically ask if Knight had declined any money from the NRA, Knight said, “Well, we just haven’t taken any funds from the NRA lately.”

But according to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission, the NRA’s political action committee has made three donations to Knight’s campaign this election cycle: $1,000 in July 2017, $1,500 in May 2018, and $2,500 in July 2018. Both the NRA and the Knight campaign reported the 2017 contribution to the FEC. The 2018 contributions currently appear in the NRA’s FEC filings but not in Knight’s filings—perhaps because campaigns are required file quarterly, while PACs must file their contributions monthly. There is no indication in the FEC records that Knight’s campaign rejected or returned any of the NRA money. Neither the NRA nor Knight’s campaign returned requests for comment.

It’s unclear why Knight—a vocal gun rights advocate who has consistently received “A” ratings from the NRA—would want voters to believe that he doesn’t take money from the group. But his statements come at a time when survivors of the Parkland school shooting have made it their mission to vote out of office any lawmakers who accept NRA donations. The Parkland teens and their allies have put particular pressure on NRA-backed Republican incumbents in suburban districts like Knight’s, where anti-gun-control views seem increasingly out-of-step voters’ desires. Knight’s Democratic challenger, Katie Hill, has also criticized him for accepting NRA cash.

Knight hardly ranks among the top recipients of NRA funds—he received $3,000 from the group during the 2016 election cycle—but his votes have drawn the ire of gun violence prevention groups. They take issue with his co-sponsorship of a 2017 bill that would force states to recognize out-of-state concealed-carry permits, as well as his votes that would prevent the Veteran Affairs’ Department and the Social Security Administration from sharing individuals’ mental health records with the background check system that is used to determine whether individuals are eligible to purchase weapons. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the gun control group founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) have included Knight on their lists of targeted incumbents. Giffords has already spent $12,000 on digital advertising to oppose Knight’s reelection.

The public outcry for stricter gun laws following Parkland have pushed some vulnerable Republicans to soften their stances on guns. Fourteen GOP House members, for example, have cosponsored legislation to expand background checks for gun sales, while nine have backed a proposal that would take guns away from those deemed a risk to themselves or others. Knight has not signed on to either bill.

During the same podcast interview in which he falsely denied receiving NRA funding, Knight expressed support for stricter background checks but also noted that he opposes banning assault weapons. His campaign website calls attention to his staunch support for the Second Amendment. “There is no law Congress can pass to stop gun violence,” it reads. “Undermining the 2nd Amendment by crafting gun control laws aimed to reduce violence rarely results in safer communities.”

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 can’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 won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—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 can’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 won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—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