Well the Republicans are certainly trying to rig it in such a manner.
fuck you dbair.
up yours union phag
yeah this election speaks volumes about the shift since Citizens United.
WHO WILL BE BUYING YOUR VOTE THIS NOVEMBER?
Despite this significant push from Romney's super PAC, his fund raising totals still pale in comparison to Obama's. Since the Federal Election Commission (FEC) started publishing campaign contribution data in Q2 2011, Romney's campaign has raised nearly $145 million, with his super PAC boosting his unofficial spending power to roughly $200 million. Obama's campaign, on the other hand, has raised just over $325 million, with his super PAC adding only $10 million to that total.
Before you label me as some liberal--I haven't voted for either major party since 2000--which I am sure some bipolar mind only allows for two paradigms but Walker spent $35m and his opponent spent $2m.
So let me get this right. Spending on campaigns is bad, unless you are a Democrat, then it's all on the up and up and you earned all that cash the noble way and can spend it with head held high?
So Walker outspending bad
Obama outspending good
KK, just so I have that correct.
lol[video=youtube_share;bquhDGjnD-M]http://youtu.be/bquhDGjnD-M[/video]
Quite the contrary. It's just to show that money and not policy dictates elections. It would require a lot of work that I am not willing to do to prove but anecdotally there is a stronger correlation to the outcomes of elections and money spent then there is to policymaking decisions.
The 2008 campaigns are just as indicative of this as are the current ones.
So with that in mind. Obama should be all accounts win in a landslide victory as he has close to twice as much money as Romney. So a little this and that and why even have elections. Just who ever has the best fund raiser gets to be Chief. Hilarious! /puke