Originally Posted by RyeBread
infinitely deeper pockets?
stabenow's campaign fund has decades of elected "employ" to fund it. (similarily how Brooks' campaign funds for the county seat are exponentially larger than any challenger he has seen)
historically, it seems to my feeble mind, that the
have, and spend way more to get elected, at least in this state.
how much again has DeVos spent/raised? there are other examples, but I quite simply don't feel like rooting around for them.
Bouchard also hasn't come close to playing all of his cards yet...
just so you know, Bouchard isn't hiding anything. He took a 2nd mortgage on his house for 250,000, and his campaign spent just over 480,000 so far.. That is less then how much Butler took out of his own pocket for his election. (yes, he is a pastor at a church who makes over 1 million per year)
Stabenow released today that they have 5.2 million in their campaign fund. Bouchard has 570,000.
have not spent more then
. You are just following the bias of the media..
The National Taxpayers Union Foundation has added up the public costs of the presidential election. It found that of the nearly $700 million spent, taxpayers paid almost half.
* Nine of the 11 presidential candidates in the primaries took a total of $61 million from taxpayers to run their campaigns -- with George W. Bush and Libertarian candidate Harry Browne rejecting public funds.
* The GOP convention in Philadelphia cost taxpayers $46.5 million, and the Democrats' convention in Los Angeles cost another $53 million..
* As for the general election, 37 percent of the $124 million Bush raised was public money -- while 62 percent of Al Gore's $133 million came from taxpayers.
* Then there is the $7 million that will be spent on the inauguration.
Source: Editorial, "Our Publicly Financed Election," Investor's Business Daily, December 14, 2000.