$165 million

[pepper11]

According to the Wall Street Journal, Romney will have an additional 165 million dollars to spend starting this coming Thursday. This is just an insane incredible amount that is apparently going to be used almost exclusively on TV ads.  Considering its close to a tie ball game headed into the conventions, this is going to give Romney a huge advantage headed into the homestretch. Looks like all his extra fundraising is going to pay off.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443713704577599560735951198.html

[5280]

More money is always good, as long its not from the government.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Romney may be able to literally buy the election with his huge monetary advantage over the incumbent.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

If he buys this off and Citizens United isn't repealed, I'm going to punch a Republican congressman.

[pepper11]

Romney may be able to literally buy the election with his huge monetary advantage over the incumbent.

No one seemed to say Obama bought his election in 2008, even though he had a huge money advantage.

[RogueBeaver]

Doesn't matter how much you raise but how you spend it. Just ask Linda McMahon, Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina.

[5280]

Doesn't matter how much you raise but how you spend it. Just ask Linda McMahon, Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina.

It's enough money to bury Obama he won't be able to crawl out to run the country a 2nd term.

[tmthforu94]

No one seemed to care about "buying an election" back in 2008.

[5280]

If he buys this off and Citizens United isn't repealed, I'm going to punch a Republican congressman.

If you want to go to jail, do so. I suggest you refrain from that idea.

[Lambsbread]

This is good

[LiberalJunkie]

No one seemed to care about "buying an election" back in 2008.

Obama didn't buy it in 2008, the Republicans handed it to him.

[Mr. Morden]

Of course, Obama will also have general election money that he'll be able to access once he's formally nominated.  How much does he have, relative to Romney's $165 million?

[pepper11]

Article did not say. Would be good to know as I couldn't find that info.

[NHI]

No one seemed to care about "buying an election" back in 2008.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I'm not saying Romney will buy the election, I'm saying he very well could with his advantage.

[Minnesota Mike]

I do believe that this is not "new money" but money already already listed in his fundraising reports that he was unable to spend until after the convention (I also believe a large portion is actually RNC money).

[Mr. Morden]

I do believe that this is not "new money" but money already already listed in his fundraising reports that he was unable to spend until after the convention (I also believe a large portion is actually RNC money).

Yes, it's money that he's been raising throughout the campaign, but that was donated to his general election fund, so he's only able to use it once he's the official party nominee.  Whether the various news articles reporting on his past fundraising have actually distinguished between the primary $ and the general election $, I don't know.

[Minnesota Mike]

I do believe that this is not "new money" but money already already listed in his fundraising reports that he was unable to spend until after the convention (I also believe a large portion is actually RNC money).

Yes, it's money that he's been raising throughout the campaign, but that was donated to his general election fund, so he's only able to use it once he's the official party nominee.  Whether the various news articles reporting on his past fundraising have actually distinguished between the primary $ and the general election $, I don't know.

The media has been reporting what is in the FEC reports which cover both Primary and General election fundraising.

BTW if you look at the posted WSJ article (at least the free portion) it does not say that Romney could not use the whole $165 until after the Convention, just that he will hill have $165 mill available after the convention and that "A substantial portion of that is money that Mr. Romney has so far not been able to touch, because it was donated specifically for the general election."

[Beet]

The massive amounts of money in politics are a shame no matter which candidate it's for. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat, Republican, libertarian, independent, or whatnot. Unless you have tens of millions of dollars to drop on an election, it directly decreases the potential influence that you can have in politics and so it's inimical to your interests.

[Joe Biden 2020]

The massive amounts of money in politics are a shame no matter which candidate it's for. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat, Republican, libertarian, independent, or whatnot. Unless you have tens of millions of dollars to drop on an election, it directly decreases the potential influence that you can have in politics and so it's inimical to your interests.

I completely agree and is the main factor that caused me to shy away from my dreams of being a politician myself.  In order to run for the Oklahoma State House of Representatives, you'd better have $1 million just laying around ready to drop.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The massive amounts of money in politics are a shame no matter which candidate it's for. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat, Republican, libertarian, independent, or whatnot. Unless you have tens of millions of dollars to drop on an election, it directly decreases the potential influence that you can have in politics and so it's inimical to your interests.

I completely agree and is the main factor that caused me to shy away from my dreams of being a politician myself.  In order to run for the Oklahoma State House of Representatives, you'd better have $1 million just laying around ready to drop.

That's a lot of vacuum cleaners to sell.

[Joe Biden 2020]

The massive amounts of money in politics are a shame no matter which candidate it's for. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat, Republican, libertarian, independent, or whatnot. Unless you have tens of millions of dollars to drop on an election, it directly decreases the potential influence that you can have in politics and so it's inimical to your interests.

I completely agree and is the main factor that caused me to shy away from my dreams of being a politician myself.  In order to run for the Oklahoma State House of Representatives, you'd better have $1 million just laying around ready to drop.

That's a lot of vacuum cleaners to sell.

LOL

[後援会]

I recall reading through a study that found that spending more money really didn't increase your total share of the vote. Fundraising more money probably means you'll have a higher share of the vote, but higher fundraising totals usually signify higher amounts of support (see Obama, 2008). So if both candidates have lots of money (see: every presidential race), I don't really read into it. So much demagoguery about Citizens United.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I recall reading through a study that found that spending more money really didn't increase your total share of the vote. Fundraising more money probably means you'll have a higher share of the vote, but higher fundraising totals usually signify higher amounts of support (see Obama, 2008). So if both candidates have lots of money (see: every presidential race), I don't really read into it. So much demagoguery about Citizens United.

Welcome to the forum!!

I do tend to agree with you that money isn't everything in a campaign of any level.  It is just a huge determining factor of how you can portray your opponent.  Since most campaign ads are now talking bad about the other guy instead of talking about your plans, money is even more important.

[後援会]

Welcome to the forum!!

I do tend to agree with you that money isn't everything in a campaign of any level.  It is just a huge determining factor of how you can portray your opponent.  Since most campaign ads are now talking bad about the other guy instead of talking about your plans, money is even more important.

Thanks!

But there's so much money on the federal level, does it really matter? At a certain point, the market gets saturated. And just the making of ads often propels them into the spotlight. Like Obama's "ROMNEY KILLED PEOPLE" ad got news attention even before it was actually run in any state.

I think the study assigned about 1% extra for every time a candidate got outspent their opponent by a margin of 2. So outspending someone 8x only gave a candidate 3%. On the presidential level, where every candidate gets a lot of money, I think this would matter even less.