James Comer opposed gambling in his state – until pro-gambling groups started giving him money: report

James Comer is heading the House GOP's effort to investigate the Biden administration as the chair of the House Oversight Committee. But according to The Daily Beast, he should face similar ethical questions following an about-face on the expansion of gambling in his state.

Comer has long-represented a conservative Christian swath of Kentucky that has been suspicious of gambling. He voted against the building of nine new casinos in the state back in 2008, rebuking the state's influential horse-racing industry. But when he won the race for Kentucky agriculture commissioner in 2011, it was done with the help of the CEO of the company that owns the legendary Kentucky Derby racetrack – who gave the candidate the maximum $2,000 contribution.

Just a year later Comer, who is trying to tie the Biden family to allegations of bribery, testified in favor of a constitutional amendment to build seven new gambling facilities around Kentucky. Even though the amendment failed, the Kentucky Republican went on to benefit from his new-found ties to the gambling industry.

Also read: 'Doesn't make any sense': Marjorie Taylor Greene makes bizarre request of Freedom Caucus

"In 2013, Comer was still carrying tens of thousands of dollars in debt from his 2011 run, the byproduct of an eleventh-hour $100,000 loan he gave to his own campaign. That spring, one of Kentucky’s most influential men held a fundraiser at his Louisville home to retire Comer’s debt: Brett Hale, then a senior vice president of Churchill Downs," The Beast's Sam Brody reported. "Thanks to maximum-level contributions from Hale and other Churchill Downs brass, the event eliminated Comer’s outstanding debt of roughly $28,000 with a haul of $36,000. Churchill Downs employees accounted for $5,300 of that total."

In 2015 just before he lost his run for governor, Comer was made an honorary co-chairman of the pro-gambling group Kentucky Wins, which was another example of his questionable ethics, according to CREW litigation counsel Stuart McPhail.

"What you’re seeing is a politician who is opposed to this ideologically, and money starts to flow to them before there’s any apparent change in view, and lo and behold, their view starts to change,” said McPhail. “There’s no speech to persuade anyone there. Money isn’t buying ads or newspaper articles… it’s being used, at the very least, to buy influence.”

“There’s a story you could tell that he just switched his views on this for pure political ambitions—or he was persuaded by other facts,” he continued. “It’s a reason why it’s often hard to suss out corrupt actions from innocent ones.”

A Comer spokesperson didn't respond the the Beast's request for comment, the website said.

Read the full report over at The Daily Beast.