Meg Whitman truly believes that California is for sale. She has spent a record-breaking $140 million of her own money in an attempt to buy the state. But California isn't just some eBay item Whitman can bid on.
Whitman has run 80,000 TV ads to promote her conservative version of a future for California. That one video above is fighting against the, at least, $60 million Whitman has spent buying up airtime and producing commercials for herself.
What else has Whitman spent her money on in this race? Here are some recent calculations. On staff and spouse travel, lodging and meals: $2,643,529. Fundraising events: $1,028,538. On campaign consultants: $11,085,653. On print ads: $4,247,724. On polling and survey research: $1,254,627.
In all of this tossing of money around like life is a game of Monopoly, Whitman's true goal is an attempt to buy democracy. She's acting on a belief that if she throws enough of her own wealth out to woe voters, she can buy their votes. As if California is up for auction and the deciding factor of who wins is who bids enough.
California is not for sale. Please share this blog and the above video with other Californians who cannot be bought.
Follow Robert Greenwald on Twitter: www.twitter.com/robertgreenwald
Whitman spends $140 million of her own money on her campaign - you call it buying California.
What do you call it when her competitor spends $140 million of other's money - i.e. special interests & union political contributions? Isn't that considered buying California? Or, what do you consider it?
Don't look here, look there.
The Brown campaign estimates a total of $40 million in campaign expenditures (about the same that Grey Davis spent in his last full election). Add to that the estimated $20 million in independent expendtures from unions, et al, that comes to $60 million v.s. Whitman's $140 million.