Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Bob King
Bob King (Libertarian Party) ran for election to the U.S. House to represent Texas' 21st Congressional District. He lost in the general election on November 5, 2024.
King completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2023. Click here to read the survey answers.
Biography
Bob King was born in Dallas, Texas. He earned a bachelor's degree from Southern Methodist University in 1982 and a graduate degree from the Cox School of Business in 1983. He also earned a degree from Rice University in 2006. As of his 2024 campaign, King was retired. He previously worked as a banker, a corporate financial officer, and in a nonprofit as a program director and executive director.[1]
King has been affiliated with the following organizations:[1]
- St. John's Episcopal Church, New Braunfels, TX
- Comal County Seniors Center, New Braunfels, TX
- Val Verde Border Humanitarian Coalition, Del Rio, TX
Elections
2024
See also: Texas' 21st Congressional District election, 2024
Texas' 21st Congressional District election, 2024 (March 5 Democratic primary)
Texas' 21st Congressional District election, 2024 (March 5 Republican primary)
General election
General election for U.S. House Texas District 21
Incumbent Chip Roy defeated Kristin Hook and Bob King in the general election for U.S. House Texas District 21 on November 5, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Chip Roy (R) | 61.9 | 263,744 |
 | Kristin Hook (D)  | 36.1 | 153,765 | |
 | Bob King (L) | 2.1 | 8,914 | |
| Total votes: 426,423 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Dan McQueen (Independent)
Democratic primary election
Democratic primary for U.S. House Texas District 21
Kristin Hook advanced from the Democratic primary for U.S. House Texas District 21 on March 5, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Kristin Hook | 100.0 | 28,579 |
| Total votes: 28,579 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Republican primary election
Republican primary for U.S. House Texas District 21
Incumbent Chip Roy advanced from the Republican primary for U.S. House Texas District 21 on March 5, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Chip Roy | 100.0 | 96,610 |
| Total votes: 96,610 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Libertarian convention
Libertarian convention for U.S. House Texas District 21
Bob King advanced from the Libertarian convention for U.S. House Texas District 21 on March 23, 2024.
Candidate | ||
| ✔ | | Bob King (L) |
| ||||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Endorsements
Ballotpedia did not identify endorsements for King in this election.
Pledges
King signed the following pledges.
Campaign themes
2024
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Bob King completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2023. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by King's responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.
| Collapse all
My professional background includes a first career in energy corporate finance, and a second career as a nonprofit executive and consultant.
I am age 62, have been married for 38 years, and have two grown sons living independently.
We have to do something different if we want to give our country to our children and grandchildren in any kind of survivable condition. Right now we are failing that test.
So I have decided to do something about it, and run for Congress.- Government is far too intrusive into our economic liberties. Spends too much, taxes too much, and redistributes in a corrupt, inefficient and ineffective manner.
- Government is far too intrusive into our personal liberties. Stay out of our bedrooms, stay out of our medical decisions, stay out of our educational decisions.
- Enough interventionism! Time to again speak softly and carry a big stick. Both parties favor getting involved, either directly or by proxy, in too many wars.
I am not a secessionist, and I do not favor the red vs. blue national divorce idea. But we must acknowledge that either of those is better than the second civil war the two major parties are driving us towards.
In my life I have my parents, of course, and three other mentors:
1. My high school football coach, Oscar Cripps, who taught me never to quit, and not to care who gets the credit.
2. The CEO of Seagull Energy, Barry Galt, who gave me my biggest break in life when he made me his corporate treasurer at age 29.
A clearly articulated set of principles that would guide every decision and every vote.
A balance of business sector and nonprofit sector experience.
2. To advocate for the minimum government intrusion into the economic and personal liberties of the people.
3. To know the Constitution and to abide by it, even when its restrictions work against one's objectives; and to jealously guard the powers and prerogatives of the legislative branch from usurpations by other branches, most especially by the executive branch.
4. To diligently serve on assigned committees and to exercise competent oversight of government operations.
5. To negotiate and ultimately to approve a budget that forces the government to live within its means.
BTW, Whataburger is way better than In and Out.
It is an easy read for those who have seen the two movies, but it has so much rich detail that the movies never get into. It is endlessly fascinating and can be read for entertainment over and over just as the films can be enjoyed over and over.
While Don Vito Corleone is a criminal, he has a code of honor that can still be respected. While his son Michael has all the intellect in the world, he lacks the humanity that his father showed.
I wish I could be Kirk Herbstreit, be as expert as he is and as articulate as he is, and spend my Saturday mornings on college campuses across the country. Pony Up! and Geaux Tigers!
The House is noisy and rancorous and even uncivil at times, but it is where 435 representatives must come together to do the nation's business.
But if we can judge by results, NO, a Congress full of long-tenured political pros certainly does not seem to be getting the job done.
That's not something the Republicans or Democrats want you to focus on, because they collectively gave us this problem. It's worse than bad economic policy -- it is sinful for one generation to steal the wealth of its children and grandchildren the way we have. We must take drastic action to shrink the government, and do it soon, before our dollars are worthless. It's just a matter of time.
The second great challenge is the degradation of our national discourse. The Red tribe and the Blue tribe hate one another and it's getting worse. Both sides' answer to how we end the national rancor is for them to cram their ideologies down the throats of the other side.
But since we have the gerrymandered districts, we DO need term limits.
A: None of your damn business! Am I being detained?
Of course, PRINCIPLED compromise is necessary. I believe in small government but not zero government. Any action that moves us in the right direction is something we should take advantage of.
Unfortunately, we have grown tolerant of government using its power to imprison us to coerce us into paying taxes, voluntarily or otherwise. This abuse of power is wrong, and that wrong must be minimized to the smallest extent possible.
Second, the House should investigate the waste of taxpayer money. Waste must be ferreted out and must count against future appropriations for any department or function of government.
Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.
Campaign website
King’s campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
Bob Has Solutions 1. Propose a "Re-Awaken Federalism" amendment to the US Constitution. Let's let California be California, and let Texas be Texas, and stop trying to force one solution on everyone. Not every issue needs to be settled in DC and jammed down everyone's throats. Benefits: more localized decision-making makes for better government, less incivility and reduces the threat of national civil instability. It will also result in far less federal spending, which means far less federal taxation. More money in your paycheck. 2. Propose a “Right to Privacy” amendment to the US Constitution that keeps government out of our bedrooms, limits its ability to interfere in procreation decisions, and gives parents primacy in educational and healthcare decisions affecting their minor children. Benefits: eliminates threats of government intrusion into your personal and family matters, more freedom to pursue happiness as you define it. 3. Give tax credits (rather than deductions) for contributions to "safety net" charitable organizations. In so doing, get the federal government out of managing bureaucracy-heavy relief programs. Send that capital to the more innovative, more nimble, and more responsive private charitable sector, and watch it flourish! Benefits: encourages more charitable giving while also allowing us to massively reduce wasteful and corrupt government spending, and eliminate deficit spending. Also clears out huge swaths of federal government bureaucracy, while providing better dollar-for-dollar outcomes for beneficiaries of safety net programs. 4. Break up the massive and entrenched DC bureaucracy by eliminating several federal departments, slashing spending in others, and relocating most of them away from Washington in a competitive process among relevant cities across the country. Benefits: will reduce government costs by hundreds of billions of dollars, allowing us to further reduce taxes coming out of your paycheck; will TRULY drain the DC swamp of an east coast ruling class telling us how to live our lives. 5. Link the implementation of expanded and simplified legal immigration to progress in reducing illegal border crossings and adjudicating asylum requests. Benefits: more immigration but better managed immigration means more economic growth with lower inflation. It allows more people to live free and achieve their dreams without creating an unbearable strain on social services. It allows Americans to experience the benefits of legal immigration without the national security threats, human and drug trafficking that we are currently experiencing. 6. Bring home our forward-deployed US ground troops and change their mission to a defensive one, versus continuing to subsidize the defense of other nations, instigating regime change wars, and asking the Army to occupy foreign lands. Benefits: reduce defense spending without adversely impacting our safety, reduce our provocations that contribute to wars around the globe, and make military service be about national defense rather than interventionism. 7. Stop the incarceration of drug users who commit no violent crimes. End the counterproductive "War on Drugs" that has failed since the Nixon Administration to reduce the addiction problem, and has instead created – just as during Prohibition – a massively profitable landscape for violent criminal enterprise. Attack drug abuse as a medical problem, not a criminal problem. Benefits: ends the counterproductive drug wars, reduces violent crime, reduces incarceration costs, puts more fathers back home in families where they can stop the cycle of poverty and crime. Solution #1: Re-awaken Federalism Federalism already exists in the US Constitution. The problem is that we haven't been following it faithfully in the past century. We have ignored the simple language of our constitution’s Tenth Amendment, which says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This clear expression has been gutted by overzealous partisans in Washington, aided by an overly expansive reading of the Interstate Commerce clause in Article I of the Constitution. We should clarify this conflict in favor of more authority reserved to the States, with an amendment to the Constitution as follows:
Congress would, under this amendment, still have the power to regulate interstate commerce (that is, transactions crossing state lines) and to regulate toxic emissions that cross state lines. But this simple clarification would cause the courts to rule as unconstitutional literally hundreds of unnecessary federal regulations and laws, take power out of DC, and place it closer to the people, as the Founders intended. Absent a return to a robust concept of Federalism, the only way to resolve our current national disunity without bloodshed would be a negotiated national divorce, as we saw in the 1990s when Czechoslavakia peacefully broke into the independent countries of Slovakia and the Czech Republic. The hyper-partisan direction in Washington has many Americans of various political persuasions fearing a potential second Civil War. It has also led some citizens of Texas to contemplate secession (i.e. "Texit"), which precedent would suggest could lead to CW2. A commitment to federalism is a far better solution, and it already exists in the Constitution. We just have to re-awaken it. Solution #2: A Right to Privacy Amendment There is more to a Right to Privacy than just the abortion issue. From 1973 (Roe v Wade) until 2022 (Dobbs v Jackson), America operated under the presumption that there existed in the Constitution a "right to privacy" in sexual, procreation and family matters. Even though sending the issue back to the States may have a proper decision from a jurisprudence point of view, Dobbs has the adverse effect of taking that happy presumption away. I'm not saying Dobbs was a bad ruling. A right to privacy wasn't in the Constitution. It was nowhere to be found. However, the vast majority of Americans believe in a right to privacy, and that if there isn't one written, there should be. This is not a left vs right issue. All sides would benefit from a constitutional right to privacy. So why haven't we defined it? The answer is that extremists on both sides of the abortion debate, like my opponents, have no interest in finding a solution. They raise way too much political money pandering to the extremist 10% on each side, and as a result, we never make progress. If elected, my first act will be to introduce a constitutional amendment defining sexual, reproductive and parental rights, as follows: The rights to (i) privacy in the pursuit of happiness in domestic relationships among consenting adults, (ii) dominion over decisions affecting the creation (excluding the abortion of any unborn children capable of sustained life outside the womb) of families, and (iii) authority over the disciplining of and healthcare and education decisions for minor children (provided that the States can still define and punish child abuse), shall not be abridged. This amendment gives us a written definition of our right to privacy, which we need, and it would be acceptable to all but the extremes on both sides of the abortion issue. Why hasn't it been offered up by Republicans and Democrats? Isn't it obvious? Solution #3: Use the Tax Code to Supercharge Private Charity Government as an intermediary in the provision of a social safety net brings corruption, a bloated bureaucracy, inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and virtually no flexibility or adaptability. No matter how badly it performs, it never goes away. In fact, failure in the public sector is automatically used as an excuse to ask for more money. In contrast, rivate charity is far more responsive to changing needs, is generally more effective and efficient on a dollar-for-dollar basis, and must compete and continually perform in order to fundraise effectively and survive. We can dramatically improve outcomes while reducing the government’s role in our lives by shifting who provides the social safety net from government to the private charity sector. All we have to do is institute tax credits, rather than tax deductions, for defined US safety net charities. It will redirect hundreds of billions of dollars away from government programs and towards charitable programs. It also gives each taxpayer a choice: do I believe private charity is more efficient, or do I trust the government to re-distribute my money? We all know where the vast majority of Americans would come out on that question. Transitional issues can be managed. The implementation could be phased in. Charities would be required to meet specific guidelines for both mission definition (food, shelter, health care, education and disaster relief for Americans below the poverty level) and financial transparency (similar to corporate SEC reporting rules) in order to have their contributions qualify for the credits. Nonqualifying charities would still have 501(c)3 status and its donations would still be eligible for tax deductions. Religious organizations would qualify only to the extent of contributions to entities that meet the mission and transparency guidelines. Within a reasonable time the massive capital shift will result in better outcomes for recipients and taxpayers alike. And this will make a substantial dent in our deficits very quickly. As funding flows towards charitable solutions, Congress will have to shut down the duplicative programs, and redirect what public capital is left to corners of the safety net that remain underfunded. Solution #4: Disperse the Bureaucracy They create nothing, except taxes to keep them employed and wealthy, and regulations to keep us under their thumbs. Bureaucracies are inherently slow to adapt to change; they are ineffective in achieving outcomes and are inefficient on a per dollar invested basis when compared to private sector alternatives; they are corrupted by political influences rather than prioritizing economic objectives; once established, they are focused to an absurd extent on the accumulation of power and the growth of its mass; and, if they are based almost exclusively in one location, they create an entrenched ruling class that lives within its own bubble fails to understand the people over which they exert control. We can break up the massive, entrenched and often redundant DC bureaucracies by
Lip service to the contrary, most Republicans are no more interested in doing this than Democrats. Because they live in the same swamp, in places like my Republican opponent's home, Loudoun County, Virginia. Let's use the Energy Department as an example. What does the DOE and its 109,000 employees and contractors do? (Click here to see the absurd org chart of the DOE)
We should go through this same process with each federal department. Not only will we save billions of dollars necessary to reduce our deficit spending; we will also break up the permanent ruling class that controls this country, that sends its kids to Ivy League schools and gets them jobs in their congressman's office, in DC lobbying, law firms and special interest groups, thus perpetuating the power of the ruling class. This power does not need to forever reside in Washington DC. They have been ripping us off long enough. Solution #5: Link Expanded Legal Immigration to Progress in Reducing Illegal Immigration Negotiate to expand and simplify LEGAL IMMIGRATION to the United States that would go into effect only if and when we have (1) regained functional control of our borders, and (2) adjudicated 95% of the 2+ million provisional asylum cases that the Biden Administration has admitted without control into the country. This proposal would make adherence to the rule of law the ALLY of expanded and simplified legal immigration. Additional thoughts: I believe in EASIER LEGAL IMMIGRATION as a fundamental principle. The US is a nation of immigrants, and virtually all of us are descendants of immigrants from other countries. The vast majority of immigrants come here to work hard and to make a better life for themselves and their families. They generally make wonderful citizens. Lastly, in the long run, our economy will have a huge need for more workers in all kinds of jobs. But we also believe in the RULE OF LAW, and we acknowledge that the country does not trust the government to liberalize legal immigration until and unless we get the current border mess under control. In order to return to a principle of easier legal immigration, we must do a far better job of committing permanently to the principle of much stricter enforcement of immigration laws. We must close off the Provisional Asylum program until we have worked through the massive backlog (2 million?) of unadjudicated asylum claims. Sadly, this will take many years, but that is the fault of those who allowed this to get out of control. We must balance the CBP and other law enforcement’s legitimate need to stop, question and/or detain suspicious persons with the due process protections that we are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. We cannot let the response to the massive influx of illegal migrants violate the rights of citizens and legal immigrants who happen to share a Hispanic heritage. We should work cooperatively with Mexico to help them secure THEIR southern border. This migration problem is hurting Mexico as badly or worse than it is hurting the US. Investments in Central American economics and in Mexican border security will be pennies on the dollar compared to what we will have to spend to clean up President Biden's mess on the border. And if handled correctly, with humility and cooperation, it should greatly strengthen our vital relationship with Mexico rather than strain it, as we are doing now. We should NOT designate the Mexican cartels as FTOs without provisos that under no circumstances (1) will we violate Mexican sovereignty without a specific congressional declaration, and (2) under no circumstances will American citizens or legal residents be subject to surveillance without a court order specific to the individual. Militarizing the drug war, especially on the other side of the border, would be massively counterproductive. It would 1) drive the cartels and the Mexican government into greater mutual cooperation; 2) drive the Mexican government to pursue stronger diplomatic ties with China; 3) make kidnapping targets out of the 1.6 million US expats living in Mexico, who are currently not targeted and in fact are diligently avoided by the cartels; and 4) create violent kinetic responses by the established gangs here on the US side of the border. We should create a four-tier approach to legal migration for when we do open up: a) citizen track, b) refugee track, c) guest worker track, and d) Dreamers. We should establish easier paths to citizenship for legal immigrants, legitimate war refugees and Dreamers; establish a simplified path to legal residency (but not citizenship) for guest workers. Solution #6: Bring Home the Ground Troops The last presidential military budget request of $773 billion included $177.5 billion for the Army, $194 billion for the Air Force and Space Force, and $230.8 billion for the Navy and Marine Corps. The sum of our defense spending is about 40% of all the defense spending on earth, according to the 2022 SIPRI Military Expenditure Databas. By contrast, China spends about 13% and Russia about 4%. So we are currently outspending China by 3:1 and Russia by 10:1. We have room to safely reduce military spending. Add to these facts that our European allies, without us, are outspending Russia by 4:1; our Asian allies are spending nearly as much as China (82%), and the Middle Eastern regimes generally friendlier towards us are collectively spending more than Iran. It's time for us to begin downsizing the Army and bringing those troops (Marines, also) home, giving them a more defensive mission. We should have learned in recent decades that being an occupying / pacifying force is not our distinctive competency. Let the UN do that. We can continue to support our European, Asian and Middle Eastern allies with our best-in-class Navy and Air Force. We can continue to invest in the best strike forces on earth (Marines, SEALs, etc.) to carry out missions on foreign territory when necessary. And of course we must maintain a nuclear deterrent that dissuades anyone on earth from provoking us. We can do this without abandoning our contractual allies. But they must create more self-sufficiency in their national defense, as has Israel. Our assistance to allies should involve diplomatic support, selling them defensive armaments, sharing military intelligence, providing air and naval support. We can no longer afford to give near-unlimited armaments to our friends. Solution #7: End the Drug Wars Our experience with Prohibition in the 1920s and 30s should have taught us that we cannot effectively legislate morality. Just as during Prohibition, the Drug War has created a massively profitable landscape for violent criminal enterprise. At the Federal level, we should:
|
” |
| —Bob King’s campaign website (2024)[3] | ||
Campaign finance summary
Note: The finance data shown here comes from the disclosures required of candidates and parties. Depending on the election or state, this may represent only a portion of all the funds spent on their behalf. Satellite spending groups may or may not have expended funds related to the candidate or politician on whose page you are reading this disclaimer. Campaign finance data from elections may be incomplete. For elections to federal offices, complete data can be found at the FEC website. Click here for more on federal campaign finance law and here for more on state campaign finance law.
See also
2024 Elections
External links
|
Candidate U.S. House Texas District 21 |
Personal |
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Information submitted to Ballotpedia through the Candidate Connection survey on December 20, 2023.
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Bob King for Congress, "Solutions," accessed March 2, 2024
