Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Coast-to-coast stops on the presidential fund-raising trail paid off for Democrat John Kerry in June as he collected $34 million and boosted his record total to more than $180 million.
He has about a month of fund raising left before he receives about $75 million in taxpayer funding for the general-election campaign, which starts July 29 when he is nominated at the Democratic convention in Boston.
That's the only money Kerry will be allowed to spend campaigning until the November 2 election.
[...]
His total includes a $6 million personal loan, and he must decide by the time of the convention whether to use campaign contributions to pay off a mortgage he took out on his Boston home to finance the loan.
Bush is setting an overall record for presidential money raised and spent. He has collected more than $220 million and is on track to surpass $250 million by the time of the GOP convention in late August.
Bush long ago surpassed his record from 2000, when he raised roughly $105 million during the primaries.
His re-election campaign has not yet released June fund-raising figures, but Bush is expected to report having $64 million in the bank at the start of July.
This is just bad for democracy. When its all said and done in November, the Kerry and Bush campaigns will have spent a combined half billion dollars. Is that really necessary? Would the abolition of the "opt-out" help things?
Here's my little proposal for it (borrowed from James Carville):
No elected officials of the federal government can ever accept money for ANYTHING. When it comes time for their re-election campaign, they receive 90% of what their highest spending competitor has raised in federal funds. Not the full amount because there's an inherent cost in fundraising that the incumbent won't have to deal with. An arbitrary minimum can be set, so that the incumbent isn't forced to run a moneyless campaign.
