We have documented 3 statements by Robert Murray, in 2 cases. Each statement below gives the quotation, its original source and a link to the full case.
Case updates
Keep up with who wants to ban, limit or keep Flock cameras
Get an email if a candidate or official takes a new position on plate-reader networks, or if a city, legislature or court acts on them.
Important updates only. Free. Confirm your email to start. Unsubscribe anytime. How we handle your email.
Role at the time: Republican candidate for U.S. House in Virginia's 4th District, in an email to Dispute Index
Condemned
Statement summary
Robert Murray, the Republican candidate for Virginia's 4th congressional district, asked Dispute Index by email to change his answer on Flock-style license plate cameras to "Ban or remove," the tracker's strongest step.
“Please change my answer to "Ban or remove"”
Read the full email
2) Please change my answer to "Ban or remove"on Flock-style cameras (https://disputeindex.com/issues/license-plate-surveillance)
Email from Robert Murray to Dispute Index on his Flock camera position · Robert MurrayEmail of October 8, 2026 (UTC), item 2.
Why we used this label
The reference point is whether networked license-plate reader systems such as Flock should exist and be used. Murray asks to be placed at Ban or remove, which rejects their use, so we labeled it Condemned and placed it at Ban or remove. It replaces his September 18 statement on this tracker, which said plate readers should not be used until properly governed.
Role at the time: Republican candidate for U.S. House in Virginia's 4th district, in a written statement sent to Dispute Index
Condemned
Statement summary
Robert Murray, the Republican candidate for Virginia's 4th congressional district, said in a written statement sent to Dispute Index that, with only public information, he would vote for a war powers resolution directing a U.S. ceasefire against Iran until Congress declares war, and that compelling classified intelligence of a just cause or an imminent threat would change his vote.
“Yes. Compelling classified intelligence of a just cause or an imminent threat would change my vote. However, with only access to public information, I would vote for a war powers resolution directing a U.S. ceasefire against Iran until Congress declares war.”
Read the full email
DisputeIndex.Com: If a war powers resolution directing the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran came before the House, would you vote for it? Yes. Compelling classified intelligence of a just cause or an imminent threat would change my vote. However, with only access to public information, I would vote for a war powers resolution directing a U.S. ceasefire against Iran until Congress declares war. I would also vote to immediately reinforce support of our regional allies to stabilize the region, aid in rebuilding energy production and distribution networks, and pursue a negotiated resolution with Iran. No negotiation may be possible, but if one is, it could only ever come through cooperation, not coercion. (I’d vote to gain a similar declaration re: Ukraine.) Legalese aside, Presidents are empowered to use military force to address only urgent, unanticipated needs. This protects our nation while giving Congress time to deliberate. Most of Virginia’s 4th District thought that Iran’s nuclear threat was “fixed” in the summer of 2025 using military strikes from just such rapid-response authority. However, after nearly a year of undeclared war with Iran, America is well past any such urgent, unanticipated period. Many agree with me. Signaling their disagreement with America’s view and approach, few allies have supported U.S. actions against Iran. Further, Iranian allies seem utterly unconcerned with Iranian arms or the prospects of nuclear fallout. For 34 years, Israeli PM Netanyahu has claimed that Iran was nearing nuclear weapon capability, yet Congress never declared war with Iran. Even today, no one has claimed that Iran has gained a nuclear weapon. So, Congress needs to find a strong reason for the military to remain involved. Alternatively, Congress needs to correct 80 years of military delegation precedent by re-asserting its constitutional authority and regaining control of force projection. Otherwise, there is a significant risk that future presidents may misuse the military for far worse reasons. Why else do I hold my position? 1) I prioritize Virginia, then America, then America’s allies… not the reverse. I care more about our homeless who sleep near Virginia’s Capitol and the hard-working Americans struggling to pay their bills amidst inflation and soaring taxes. I care about Social Security depletion, declining educational competitiveness, inadequate veterans benefits, immigrant assimilation and deportation challenges, rural hospital access, gaps in preventative healthcare, and deteriorating infrastructure. These are just a few of the issues America must fix. For me, America’s domestic needs today will always outweigh distant "threats." 2) America appears hypocritical. America did nothing to prevent or punish nuclear proliferation in North Korea or 96% Muslim Pakistan. The lesson: get nukes, gain respect. 3) America must maintain the highest moral standing. It is immoral to initiate violence or use deadly force after violence ends (e.g. break ceasefire). It is also immoral to attack or threaten non-combatants based on suspicion or collective punishment. These rules apply to citizens, police, and nations. "Wars of prevention" are generally immoral “wars of aggression”. Taxpayers spent $Billions on “smart” munitions so that the U.S. could be “the most moral military in the world” by carefully avoiding civilian (non-combatant) harm. There is no excuse for harming or threatening civilians or civilian infrastructure. That’s terrorism, it’s wrong, and it provokes “blowback” that risks American lives, property, and global interests. Americans must take care in condemning countries that America had a hand in creating. ~73 years ago, the U.S. CIA removed Mosaddeq (Iran’s democratically elected PM) and installed the Shah. When this fell apart (Shah fled; Iranian Revolution; student “terrorism”), President Carter began sanctioning Iran, Iranians suffered, and yet now America blames Iran’s behavior. I find that disappointing. 4) Congress, not the President, is responsible for wartime inflation (not just prices of diesel and fertilizer). Food, energy, and commodity prices have been soaring for years before Iran turned kinetic. Regardless, Congress failed to analyze and mitigate Iran War impacts, just as Congress failed to perform and prepare for U.S. involvement in Ukraine before that. I am pro-defense, but most in Congress are pro-war and mostly disagree on who to bomb; they blame presidents for using our military while avoiding accountability for failing their constitutional duties. Americans should hold Congress accountable and demand better representation. Domestically, though I dislike market interventions, I’d also vote to keep America working by: a) suspending energy production/distribution federal taxes to discourage exports; b) offering life-saving 3-year low rate loans to farms and cargo/passenger transportation firms; and c) approving new domestic oil exploration (e.g. Alaska) to signal to the futures markets that petroleum product prices will come down and assure bondholders that America will soon solve its temporary energy challenges. I’d also call in the SEC to discuss how they are evaluating insider trading on the above (and similar) news, which even if not prosecuted, should be made public to name and shame such people. I’d also seek analysis on the benefits of activating the two idle diesel refineries (or others recently closed). Lastly, I’d press to rekindle trade relations with Canada. If Carney is disinterested, I’d signal support for oil-rich Alberta’s exit from Canada by encouraging direct relations with existing provincial leaders. As all elected officials are empowered by the press, I’d discuss Virginia politics as well. Since March, Virginia Republicans have pleaded for a fuel tax holiday. However, just like their unconstitutional gerrymandering effort, Democrats believe that punishing (rather than helping) Virginians is good government. WTVR CBS in Richmond found, “Democratic leadership rejected the idea… and said President Donald Trump is to blame for the prices because of the war.” (https://wtvr.com/news/local-news/virginia-gas-tax-holiday-march-27-2026) Now six months later after President Trump’s EO effectively suspended federal fuel taxes, Virginia’s Democraticallycontrolled government still hasn’t matched his effort. Instead, still today, a “Spanberger spokesman said the governor is…blaming the increase in fuel prices on President Donald Trump”. (https://www.msn.com/enus/news/other/virginia-republicans-urge-spanberger-to-call-special-session-for-fuel-tax-holiday/ar-AA2dLQB3) Even assuming Virginia Democrats were right six months ago, by their preventing relief, it’s now their fault. 5) Congress must now fulfill its review Iran and declare war if necessary (per Article I, Section 8 Constitution). It must do so with S.M.A.R.T. goals, using verifiable facts. We cannot again fall for WMDs, babiesfrom-incubators, chemical weapons, or any other banana-in-the-tailpipe charade. Further, before declaring war, Congress must prepare the nation for any fallout, not just economic, so Americans are insulated from the effects and lose none of their rights in the process (no digital ID, surveillance state, etc.). Summary: I’ll vote against any use of deadly force that I wouldn’t fight – that’s one way I’ll govern by The Golden Rule. It’s past time to make love, not war. Those who agree with me should support my campaign to end decades of endless war and refocus on Americans’ needs here at home. More information (and more coming soon) on: MurrayForCongress.Com and other channels paid for by Virginia Lovers for Robert Murray.
Written statement from Robert Murray to Dispute Index on Iran war powers · Robert MurrayTwo-page statement emailed as a PDF attachment, October 8, 2026 (UTC); answer in the first paragraph.
Why we used this label
The case tracks support for continued U.S. military operations against Iran, including whether a candidate would vote for a war powers resolution to remove U.S. forces from hostilities. Murray says yes on the public record and argues that the period for presidential action without Congress has passed, so we labeled it Condemned. Mixed or conditional is the closest alternative because he says classified intelligence could change his vote, but it loses because that is a stated exception to a present yes rather than a condition his answer depends on.
Role at the time: Republican candidate for U.S. House in Virginia's 4th District
Mixed or conditional
Statement summary
Robert "Family Man" Murray said Flock, Axon and similar license plate reader products are often misused, and that until they are properly governed their benefits are outweighed by civil rights violations.
“Personally, I’ve seen Flock, Axon, and similar ALPR products are often misused. Worse, they help bypass government restrictions on warrantless mass surveillance of its citizens. That’s wrong.
So, until properly governed, the benefits of these excellent technologies are outweighed by their civil rights violations, including every citizen’s 4th and 5th Amendment rights.”
The reference point is whether networked license-plate reader systems such as Flock should exist and be used. Murray says products like Flock are often misused and help bypass limits on warrantless surveillance, and that until they are properly governed their benefits are outweighed by civil rights violations. His opposition depends on the missing governance, so Mixed or conditional fits rather than Condemned.
Networked automated license-plate cameras can assemble searchable records of vehicle movements. Candidates and officials disagree over whether to ban the systems, keep them with limits, or defend them as investigative tools. This tracker separates outright bans from narrower restrictions.
Where members of Congress and 2026 midterm candidates stand on the Iran war, which Congress has not formally authorized, based on their votes on war-powers resolutions, campaign statements and public remarks.
