$119 Million Dollar Woman: Meg Whitman Breaks Bloomberg Record, Spends $119 Million of Personal Wealth on Campaign

by the Left Coast Rebel

Meg Whitman running for the governor's seat in the Once Golden state against moonbat-retread Jerry Brown just broke NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg's previous record for personal wealth spending on an individual campaign. $119 cool million dollars:

Via Yahoo News:

It's official: Meg Whitman is the biggest self-funding candidate paying her way through a single race in political history.

As the Los Angeles Times' Anthony York notes, the California GOP gubernatorial nominee contributed another $15 million to her campaign on Tuesday. That means that Whitman, who came by most of her wealth during her tenure as CEO of eBay, has spent $119 million of her own cash on the race -- almost $10 million more than previous record-holder Michael Bloomberg, who ran up his $110 million tally during his successful 2009 re-election campaign.

By comparison, Whitman's Democratic opponent Jerry Brown has spent less than $1 million, according to his latest campaign report filed the first week of August. That total has no doubt gone up since then; Brown launched his first statewide TV ads in the race just last week.

And Whitman looks to be on track to keep fattening her own campaign kitty. Just last month, she contributed $13 million of her own cash to the race — a trend that she's matched almost every month this summer. The cash has kept her ads on the air virtually nonstop in California, and she and Brown are nearly tied in the race. That's a big deal considering the outsize advantage that Democrats enjoy in the state's party registration numbers. What's more, Republicans aren't exactly staging a Golden State renaissance -- witness the dismal approval number for GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Although many are frightened by the dollar amounts required to run for office, I could care less. In a free market where one is free to choose (when wealthy), how many millions of dollars to spend on a race, it should be a function of the market. And one should be free to spend a hundred dollars or a billion, if need be.

Then we as voters are also required to research and vet the candidates, regardless of millions spent on ads, etc - and vote for the person that fits Constitutional constraint the best.

That sounds foreign in our nanny-state society though, doesn't it?

1 comment:

  1. Okay, it is plainly clear that Whitman is totally INSANE. Even Moonbeam is not crazy enough to waste that much bank.


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.