Why Would Anyone Spend $70 Million Of Their Own Money To Be Governor Of Calif?.......

[global1]

I just heard that Meg Whitman spent $80 million on her primary bid for governor of California - of which $70 million is her own money. Now that's just insane in my mind. What am I missing here? Is it worth it? Will that $70 million be and investment that helps her reap much more than that in return? Why would anyone want to invest that much money if there wasn't some sort of payoff down the line that was much bigger? Why would anyone want to be governor of such a financially troubled state? Seems to me that the people of California should be mistrustful of someone willing to spend so much money to get that job. I would be concerned that they are fiscally irresponsible and would squander the taxpayers money if elected.

Any Californian's want to weigh in on this here?

[WeDidIt]

1. Because that's how rich some people are.

For Whitman, that $70 million is akin to normal people spending $7,000 of their own money on a campaign.

[leftofcool]

2. Haven't lived there in quite some time but I would say

it has to do with being a stepping stone to the White House.

[hobbit709]

3. 1.Ego Trip

2. Looking at possible money from privatizing the state.

[Bitwit1234]

4. E=G=O

In their mind they think everyone believes they are as important as they them selves believe they are.

[daylan b]

5. Power.

Why'd you even have to ask?

[lunatica]

6. Why would someone have five mansions or two superyahts or live in Dubai?

Because she can.

[KingFlorez]

7. She's trying to buy the office

She has said that she will probably end up spending 150 million before the race is over. If someone throws out their own money like that, I don't see how they can be trusted to manage the money of a state that is already cash strapped.

[global1]

11. But I Guess Her Strategy Is Working Cause I Heard She Leads In The Polls.......

why do we as voters fall for that? Spending so much money to obtain on office should be the first sign that something might not be right about the candidate. Especially for a governorship. Maybe we need to get that word out to the voters in this country that if a candidate spends enormous amounts of money to get elected that there is something that is not right about that candidate. That either they expect to make a great financial gain from the job or that they are fiscally irresponsible and can't be trusted with the taxpayers money. Maybe if voters start getting that message and not vote for the candidates that spend inordinate amounts of money to be elected that elections would be fought on the issues and not on the amount of the spend.

This is just sick and wasteful. Think of what $70 million dollars would mean for the people of California if it where channeled into helping the people of the state - instead of going down the drain in a campaign. I just don't get it.

[napi21]

8. I asked this same question last night. Pretty much the

consensus was buy the office, and preserve her image in history. Governors become part of history!

[CountAllVotes]

9. stupidity

she's dead in the water already.

Brown = 46%
Whitman = 32%

LOSER! :rofl:

:kick:

[global1]

13. If I Were Jerry Brown I Would Use The Fact That This Lady Spent ........

obscene amounts of her own money to become the Repug candidate. I would ask the question - is that the type of person you would want in control of your tax money. Paint her as fiscally irresponsible. I think Californian's should get worried about having such a person as their governor.

[AnArmyVeteran]

10. I'm not a Californian but I think it's repulsive only the rich can run for any office.

The only people who can seriously run for office are those who are wealthy or those who sell out to the wealthy. We have so many brilliant people in this country who would make outstanding leaders, but because they wouldn't sell out to become a prostitute to corporate pimps they could never get elected.

We need campaign finance reform where all elections are funded publicly, no political advertising is allowed and the media would be forced to air debates between all candidates during primetime. They're OUR airwaves, but corporations control them.

If we can't get publicly financed elections we need to restrict the amount of money anyone can give to a candidate to $100 per election and NO ONE who can't vote for a candidate should be allowed to donate to those candidates. I'm tired of seeing millions of dollars from all over the country come into my district to pollute and corrupt my elections. And I'm tired of political ads from the outside distorting the facts or outright lying.

We could have a great system in this country if only people would wake up. But I realize that most people would rather watch a mindless reality show and be screwed by the wealthy, than to tune in to watch a debate or get informed about the candidates or the issues. Those of us who ARE aware are having to suffer the consequences of those who have no idea what a citizen's responsibilities are.

I wonder, is civics even taught in schools any more?

[global1]

12. But This Lady Spent $70 Million Of Her OWN Money........

Supposedly this is a business minded woman. What is she thinking about as far as a 'return on her investment'? Either she figures she will reap much more back in the process or she is fiscally irresponsible and shouldn't be trusted with the taxpayers of California's money. Or is it she just has a big ego and wants power? Is that what ego and power are worth? $70 million?

I agree with your statement on campaign finance reform. The only thing I would add is that there have to also be limits as to what a candidate can put in of their own money. If not - the rich would still have an advantage.

[AnArmyVeteran]

21. Just wondering: What if any corporate executive were to be banned from running for office?

If we had the campaign finance laws changed and eliminated corporate hacks from running for office just think how much the quality, integrity and honestly of our candidates would be. It would never happen, but our country would be better without all of the money whores running it. Just because someone is successful in business doesn't make them a good leader or representative of the people, just the opposite is true in my opinion. I generally believe the rich are a lower class of human beings. I'd feel a lot more represented if my plumber, electrician and landscaper as my representatives than business 'leaders'.

[Stevenmarc]

14. Power doesn't come cheap

[tularetom]

15. She doesn't appear to have a lot else going for her

Doesn't come across in those expensive commercials as very bright. Certainly she has no charisma and she isn't very attractive either.

All she really has is a ton of money, a lot of which she inherited from her well to do father.

She's looking for respect or at least acceptance IMO.

There are cheaper ways to achieve that however.

[State the Obvious]

16. If she gets in.....there will be much MORE "easy" money to be made. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

17. Well, I'm waiting to see if she tries to run for President in 2012...n/t

[kestrel91316]

18. Either she has an ego the size of New York, or she feels it is an excellent

investment and has got a plan for how she can make a huge profit on the deal.

Actually, probably both.

ETA: In this economy, her spending this money is going to come across as conspicuous consumption or just BUYING the office. People aren't stupid. I sure hope Jerry Brown plays up this angle in his own campaign.

[NightWatcher]

19. planning on selling out for more than 80 million????

[NuttyFluffers]

20. to steal more than $70 million back in some fashion, obviously.

it only doesn't make sense if you think of public service in only an altruistic sense.