Representative Cori Bush Defends Spending $70,000 on Private Security While Doubling Down on Call to Defund Police

by mcardinal

Justin Bullock, FISM News


Throughout her short legislative career, Representative Cori Bush (D-Mo.) has been a radical advocate of defunding and even abolishing the police. Yet despite her abysmal regard for law enforcement, she has spent the most money on private security out of everyone in the US House of Representatives. According to a regular report from the Federal Election Commission, Bush has spent $70,000.00 on personal security.

It should be noted that none of that spending has come from tax payer dollars. In addition, Bush joins at least 23 other federal politicians who have spent over $1,000.00 since the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021. The events of that day clearly shocked and scared many law makers and thus spending on private security has increased.

Bush was questioned on the apparent contradictory stance of being so enthusiastically against the police yet investing by far the most money in private security. Her response was aggressive, alleging that without private security she would be at a high risk of being killed. She even went on to state that police officers have threatened her life in the past and at times still do so even as a sitting Representative. Ultimately, most people are regarding such comments as radical and ideological.

The Hill reported that Bush told the press,

Defunding the police has to happen. We need to defund the police and put that money into social safety nets, because we’re trying to save lives… You would rather me die? Is that what you want to see? You want to see me die? You know, because that could be the alternative… If I have actual police officers who have threatened my life, tell me about that, tell me I don’t need security… My security is not against communal violence. My security is not to keep me safe from the people of St. Louis. It’s to keep me safe from those racist attempts made against my life.

What Bush did not answer was why she should be afforded the protection of a personal private security detail, while she believes her constituents would be better served without the protection of police.