Romney spent $42.3M of his own $$

[StateBoiler]

Come to think of it, the absolute best thing that could be done for American politics is to make political contributions tax-deductible.  There is absolutely no reason why one could deduct a contribution to the National Association of Topical Stamp Collecting, but cannot to a candidate of their choice maintaining the structure of our democracy.

Now that would be stupid.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Come to think of it, the absolute best thing that could be done for American politics is to make political contributions tax-deductible.  There is absolutely no reason why one could deduct a contribution to the National Association of Topical Stamp Collecting, but cannot to a candidate of their choice maintaining the structure of our democracy.

Now that would be stupid.

Care to explain why?

[© tweed]

Come to think of it, the absolute best thing that could be done for American politics is to make political contributions tax-deductible.  There is absolutely no reason why one could deduct a contribution to the National Association of Topical Stamp Collecting, but cannot to a candidate of their choice maintaining the structure of our democracy.

Now that would be stupid.

Care to explain why?

corporate welfare

[Verily]

Come to think of it, the absolute best thing that could be done for American politics is to make political contributions tax-deductible.  There is absolutely no reason why one could deduct a contribution to the National Association of Topical Stamp Collecting, but cannot to a candidate of their choice maintaining the structure of our democracy.

Now that would be stupid.

Care to explain why?

It's pretty much the perfect tax evasion strategy for a wealthy person who decides to enter politics.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Come to think of it, the absolute best thing that could be done for American politics is to make political contributions tax-deductible.  There is absolutely no reason why one could deduct a contribution to the National Association of Topical Stamp Collecting, but cannot to a candidate of their choice maintaining the structure of our democracy.

Now that would be stupid.

Care to explain why?

It's pretty much the perfect tax evasion strategy for a wealthy person who decides to enter politics.

I'm mainly talking about individual contributions.  If someone contributes $500 to a Presidential campaign, they should be able to deduct it off their taxes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Al's solution would never get past the 1st amendment free speech barrier.

True enough.

There's no way that SCOTUS is striking down Buckley v. Valeo any time soon.

[Verily]

Come to think of it, the absolute best thing that could be done for American politics is to make political contributions tax-deductible.  There is absolutely no reason why one could deduct a contribution to the National Association of Topical Stamp Collecting, but cannot to a candidate of their choice maintaining the structure of our democracy.

Now that would be stupid.

Care to explain why?

It's pretty much the perfect tax evasion strategy for a wealthy person who decides to enter politics.

I'm mainly talking about individual contributions.  If someone contributes $500 to a Presidential campaign, they should be able to deduct it off their taxes.

But how would you distinguish a $10,000,000 donation to one's own campaign from a $25 contribution to someone else's campaign?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Come to think of it, the absolute best thing that could be done for American politics is to make political contributions tax-deductible.  There is absolutely no reason why one could deduct a contribution to the National Association of Topical Stamp Collecting, but cannot to a candidate of their choice maintaining the structure of our democracy.

Now that would be stupid.

Care to explain why?

It's pretty much the perfect tax evasion strategy for a wealthy person who decides to enter politics.

I'm mainly talking about individual contributions.  If someone contributes $500 to a Presidential campaign, they should be able to deduct it off their taxes.

But how would you distinguish a $10,000,000 donation to one's own campaign from a $25 contribution to someone else's campaign?

Um, the same way we do now.  If I want to give to Joe Smith's campaign for Congress, I can only give $2000.  If I'm running for Congress, I can loan myself as much as I want.

[perdedor]

Always nice to see a filthy rich corporatist, like Romney, fail miserably in a presidential election.

[Lincoln Republican]

The brightest light of election '08, Mitt Romney, did remarkably well, considering he started from a position where much of the country did not know him, therefore, the considerable expenditure on his campaign was necessary.

Besides the outlay from his own resources, clearly the Romney campaign raised millions of dollars from average donors, who supported his candidacy.

Romney won several caucuses and primaries, attracting millions of votes.

His concession and withdrawal from the race, and his endorsement of McCain was class all the way.

[Verily]

Come to think of it, the absolute best thing that could be done for American politics is to make political contributions tax-deductible.  There is absolutely no reason why one could deduct a contribution to the National Association of Topical Stamp Collecting, but cannot to a candidate of their choice maintaining the structure of our democracy.

Now that would be stupid.

Care to explain why?

It's pretty much the perfect tax evasion strategy for a wealthy person who decides to enter politics.

I'm mainly talking about individual contributions.  If someone contributes $500 to a Presidential campaign, they should be able to deduct it off their taxes.

But how would you distinguish a $10,000,000 donation to one's own campaign from a $25 contribution to someone else's campaign?

Um, the same way we do now.  If I want to give to Joe Smith's campaign for Congress, I can only give $2000.  If I'm running for Congress, I can loan myself as much as I want.

Well, you were griping about donation caps earlier, so...

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

So don, let's say I'm a multi-millionaire. I file to run for some office, in many places that only takes a cheap filing fee. I "donate" $1 million to my "campaign" then proceed to do absolutely nothing but leave my name on the ballot. Can you say tax loophole?

[M]

The brightest light of election '08, Mitt Romney, did remarkably well, considering he started from a position where much of the country did not know him, therefore, the considerable expenditure on his campaign was necessary.

Besides the outlay from his own resources, clearly the Romney campaign raised millions of dollars from average donors, who supported his candidacy.

Romney won several caucuses and primaries, attracting millions of votes.

His concession and withdrawal from the race, and his endorsement of McCain was class all the way.

He won his three home states and bought a few caucuses.

[Conan]

I guess Romney didn't really want to be president. That's chump change. Gov Corzine spent $62 mill in his 2000 race for US Senate, $33 mill of which was on the primary. He spent $43 mill on the governorship.

[Lincoln Republican]

The brightest light of election '08, Mitt Romney, did remarkably well, considering he started from a position where much of the country did not know him, therefore, the considerable expenditure on his campaign was necessary.

Besides the outlay from his own resources, clearly the Romney campaign raised millions of dollars from average donors, who supported his candidacy.

Romney won several caucuses and primaries, attracting millions of votes.

His concession and withdrawal from the race, and his endorsement of McCain was class all the way.

He won his three home states and bought a few caucuses.

You have a problem with caucuses?

Besides Romney, McCain won some caucuses, Obama won some caucuses, Clinton won some caucuses, all adding to their delegate totals.

[M]

The brightest light of election '08, Mitt Romney, did remarkably well, considering he started from a position where much of the country did not know him, therefore, the considerable expenditure on his campaign was necessary.

Besides the outlay from his own resources, clearly the Romney campaign raised millions of dollars from average donors, who supported his candidacy.

Romney won several caucuses and primaries, attracting millions of votes.

His concession and withdrawal from the race, and his endorsement of McCain was class all the way.

He won his three home states and bought a few caucuses.

You have a problem with caucuses?

Besides Romney, McCain won some caucuses, Obama won some caucuses, Clinton won some caucuses, all adding to their delegate totals.

Clinton has won one caucus: Nevada. McCain has won one caucus (maybe): Washington. So "some" is an exaggeration.

Caucuses typically go to the highest bidder. Failing a significant bid, they go to the most extreme candidate.

[Alcon]

they go to the most extreme candidate.

That's a pretty vast oversimplification...

[Verily]

New Mexico was a caucus (which I only found out after chewing out some news organization for calling it such; oops).

[Alcon]

New Mexico was a caucus (which I only found out after chewing out some news organization for calling it such; oops).

It was a "firehouse caucus" - which is essentially a party-run primary.  That is, it's a private ballot vote.  Or at least that's what I recall.

[MODU]

In my view, I think candidates should be allowed to raise as much cash that they can during the primaries, since it is this period where they have to get their message out and generate name recognition.  For the general election though, I think it would be better if there was a cap on funding.  That way, the candidates have to rely more on planning, strategy, and message, rather than going willy nilly on advertising (which makes me want to turn off the tv sometimes).