McAllister said he voted "no" on legislation related to the Bureau of Land Management though he did not identify the bill. McAllister said a colleague on the House floor told him that he would receive a $1,200 contribution from Heritage Foundation if he voted against the bill. He would not name his colleague since he “did not want to put their business out on the street.”The Heritage Foundation responds that it doesn't (and can't, legally) make direct contributions to politicians, which leaves a few possibilities. McAllister could be lying—McAllister claims he didn't get the contribution because Heritage and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal were "upset with me" over his little kissing scandal, so making Heritage look bad could be a priority for him—or the colleague in the story could be lying. Or reality could be a touch more complicated, and McAllister could be telling a factually inaccurate and nuance-impaired story that boils down a system in which big donors and powerful foundations get votes because they have access ... which they have because of money, but feels less crass to most of those involved than admitting it's all about money.
“I played dumb and asked him, ‘How would you vote?’” McAllister said. “He told me, ‘Vote no and you will get a $1,200 check from the Heritage Foundation. If you vote yes, you will get a $1,000 check from some environmental impact group.’” [...]
“I voted no, and I didn’t get a Heritage Foundation check but he did,” McAllister said. “I went back and checked with my friend, ‘I didn’t get a check, man. What were you talking about?’ He told me, ‘Well, I got one. Why didn’t you?’”
In any case, here's hoping McAllister is going to fill the remainder of his term by trying to make other Republicans look bad.