Whitman becomes biggest-spending candidate on a single campaign in U.S. history

[alp227]

Source: Los Angeles Times

Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman gave her campaign another $15 million Tuesday. The latest contribution brings Whitman's personal spending in the race to $119 million, shattering the record for most money ever spent by one political candidate on a single election in American history.

Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/09/whitman-becomes-biggest-spender-in-american-political-history.html

---

More details to come as this is a blog post not necessarily a final draft of a news article. When Jerry Brown wins, Whitman will have wasted a lot on running dishonest Brown-bashing ads and will be probably bankrupt, I suppose.

[mikelgb]

1. if she loses it will set a wonderful precedent

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Never thought anyone would beat Bloomberg's last Mayor race..

This was all his own money...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/nyregion/03finance.html

<snip>

Mr. Bloomberg has spent about 40 percent more than he had at the same point in his 2005 campaign, and twice what he had spent by this point in his first run for office in 2001. Each of those races was, at the time, the most expensive municipal campaign in United States history.

The mayor has spent 16 times as much as his Democratic rival, William C. Thompson Jr., who is still scrambling to raise money from donors. And at his current pace, Mr. Bloomberg is on track to easily spend more than $100 million by Election Day on Nov. 3
<snip>

[hlthe2b]

3. Obscene.... This alone should earn her defeat...

What is wrong with some Californians that they are not repulsed by this?

[global1]

6. Exactly My Thought.......

Shouldn't voters be suspect as to why someone would spend that much money to get elected? The voters should speak and say - NO - you can't buy and election. They should defeat her just on the obscene amount of money she is wasting. Now if she instead took that money and put it to good use - like free medical care clinics or food for the poor or something - maybe that would be a different story. But to spend like water just to get elected - Wow.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Ditto.

[FiveGoodMen]

4. One good reason not to let that much money accumulate in one person's hands.

[BadGimp]

20. I could not disagree more..

The accumulation of wealth is not "the" problem.

Please research the amount of money Bill and Melinda Gates have invested around the globe in humanitarian projects? BILLIONS and BILLIONS...

It's a character issue imo.

To make my point I will quote Will Rogers. "There are 3 things you can't talk a man out of, buying a car, marrying a girl and running for public office". It was not until Ross Perot that I finally understood what he meant with #3. Money can and does accentuate character flaws as well as positive traits. Ross Perot was in my opinion a fascinating blend of both.

I paid more in Medicare taxes in each of the last 2 years than many American earn in a year. While I have accumulated some coin, I am not doing evil to my fellow Americans. There is not a 100% connection. There is a connection I would agree, just not a direct correlation.

There are people out with no great wealth to speak of, who are killing Americans every day as a result of their personal actions. If you give access to great power to the wrong people, you get people like Dick Cheney creating a global horror like the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Cheney did not buy his way into office. He got others to do that. Dick Cheney is what happens when a person with sever character flaw meets OPM (Other Peoples Money): you get hell on earth.

end of rant...

[U4ikLefty]

21. I trump your Bill and Melinda Gates with the Walton family.

Money is power in this country & when people are allowed to accumulate outrageous amounts they tend to abuse it.

[FiveGoodMen]

22. Hmmmm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9147787

Gates Foundation spends "charitably" to help Cargill dominate in Africa

[LibDemAlways]

5. Reaction of just about everyone I know to Meg's ads:

"Get her face off my tv." She's done herself no favors with her negative campaign - both in the primary and now. She has no ideas and her history with e-bay, a site dedicated to people selling crap to each other, certainly hasn't prepared her for governing this state. I fervently hope the people of California send her and her deep pockets back into obscurity.

[David__77]

8. This is headed for oblivion.

But she has redistributed wealth to some scumbag campaign workers and pollsters.

[SoapBox]

9. Wake up CA...and America. Defeat NutMeg!

...she makes me sick...

I don't believe one, SINGLE word of what she and her campaign spew. Period.

If Californians think Ahnold was a mess...elect her and see what kind of super-duper HELL we will have.

[CountAllVotes]

10. biggest spender and the biggest LIAR!

:rofl: ...

JERRY BROWN FOR GOVERNOR!!

:dem: :kick: & recommend!!

[John Kerry VonErich]

11. We need spending caps for candidates personal funds

nt

[kestrel91316]

12. When I think of all the GOOD that money could have done, instead of

line the pockets of campaign people and corporate media and ad agencies, it makes me wanna hurl.

[DBoon]

13. some people have too much money for their own good

Nobody should be able to afford running for chief executive of the world's 7th largest economy as a hobby

[catzies]

24. You have a way with words and you said that beautifully!

I'm going to use that.

[Moonwalk]

14. As a Californian, I have to say, I am sooooo embarrassed by this woman! On Behalf....

...of my State, which already mortified me with the passing of Prop. 8, I would like to apologize, yet again, for yet another unforgivable obscenity. Really, the shame of these last two elections can only be washed away if Jerry wins.

:cry:

[davidthegnome]

15. Yeah, it's sick

Frankly I think that the amount of money required to enter most elections is sick. I think it's sick that no one without rich friends or an enormous bank account has any chance in hell of getting somewhere in this government. I think that if by some miracle we actually removed profit from government (I.E. institute a draft for government officials with a much lower set salary - WITHOUT great health coverage...) we might finally begin to see some of the changes we've long dreamed of.

As long as things remain the way they are, all we can do is dream.

[alp227]

16. LA Times has now published a full story for print publication

Whitman sets U.S. record for candidate's donation to campaign

Reporting from Los Angeles and San Francisco —
Smashing the record for the most money ever donated by a candidate in a political election, Republican Meg Whitman has written her gubernatorial campaign a $15-million check that brings her personal stake in the race to $119 million.

The new infusion pushed the billionaire candidate past the previous record holder: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who spent $109 million on his 2009 reelection bid.

"It takes a lot of money to be competitive in California," said Whitman, speaking to reporters after a campaign event at the San Francisco headquarters of Yelp, which provides online customer reviews. The money was donated Monday and reported to the secretary of state's office Tuesday.

[ProudDad]

17. It'll be really great when this free spending useless harridan

pisses away this wad in order to LOSE...

But she won't be bankrupt -- the phony baloney bullshit rip-off company she was lucky enough to be hired into as a MARKETEER -- a fucking professional LIAR...it wasn't her idea, she was just brought in from Pepsico and Disney to flak for them...made her a billionaire...

[dimbear]

18. It brings to mind Poe's prophetic poem which ends......

Take thy beak from out my spleen
And take thy form from off my screen.

(or similar)

[BadGimp]

19. Here is the appropriate messaging for the Democratic Party -

especially in Kalifornia...

Being able to finance one's own campaign to high office at a level never before seen in American politics, does NOT qualify one for that office.

American is a society based on merit. Merit is not defined by the American people by how much money a candidate can throw around.

Do Americans want only the the wealthiest citizens to be the ones able to rise to high office simply because they have the wealth to do so?

We think not. The Democratic Party believes the best candidate should prevail regardless of their personal wealth.

..works for me

[fascisthunter]

23. she uses money because she has no merit