It's being reported today that over $2 .5 billion will be spent by the presidential candidates while campaigning for election in November.

It's easy to overlook what these numbers mean or how else the money could be spent. Just as an example, $2.5 billion is about half the entire schools budget for the City of Chicago.

I shake my head wondering whether anyone s thinking how the money could be better spent for the benefit of his country. I also wonder who's funding these extravagant campaign expenditures? What do the donors expect to get by writing those checks? More than an invitation to a White House dinner I'll bet.

The amount of money spent on political campaigns is absurd, obscene, ludicrous and so many, many more fitting descriptions. The good that could be done with the dollars that are spent on egomanical idealogues is immeasureable. Campaign reform and Supreme Court reversals are needed but will never happen.

I really don't have a problem with the dollars anticipated being spent on the presidential election - the more the voter knows about a candidate, the better off we know.

Come to think of it, even if the 2.5B figure is accurate (source for this number?), it pales in comparison with the tax dollars we wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan - yet nobody seems to complain about that.

Stars and Stripes reports the cost of our "efforts" in Iraq and Afghanistan total 9.7B a MONTH !!!!!!!!!! A MONTH !!!!!!

That is what I call obscene.

What The Money Spent In Iraq And Afghanistan Could Have Bought At Home In America - Business Insider

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

It's being reported today that over $2 .5 billion will be spent by the presidential candidates while campaigning for election in November.

It's easy to overlook what these numbers mean or how else the money could be spent. Just as an example, $2.5 billion is about half the entire schools budget for the City of Chicago.

I shake my head wondering whether anyone s thinking how the money could be better spent for the benefit of his country. I also wonder who's funding these extravagant campaign expenditures? What do the donors expect to get by writing those checks? More than an invitation to a White House dinner I'll bet.

For what it is worth, I am with you 100%

Originally Posted by coralway

I really don't have a problem with the dollars anticipated being spent on the presidential election - the more the voter knows about a candidate, the better off we know.

Come to think of it, even if the 2.5B figure is accurate (source for this number?), it pales in comparison with the tax dollars we wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan - yet nobody seems to complain about that.

Stars and Stripes reports the cost of our "efforts" in Iraq and Afghanistan total 9.7B a MONTH !!!!!!!!!! A MONTH !!!!!!

That is what I call obscene.

What The Money Spent In Iraq And Afghanistan Could Have Bought At Home In America - Business Insider

The source for the number was a discussion this morning on the MSNBC "Morning Joe" program after a report from the Politico website. The discussion went on to say that almost the entire amount will be spent on attack ads in the nine "swing" states. They estimated that the Romney campaign will outspend Obama by 40% on the negative advertising.

Based on the ads we've seen recently, I fail to see how a constant drumbeat of attack ads does much to further educate the electorate on the qualifications and platforms of the candidates.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

The source for the number was a discussion this morning on the MSNBC "Morning Joe" program after a report from the Politico website. The discussion went on to say that almost the entire amount will be spent on attack ads in the nine "swing" states. They estimated that the Romney campaign will outspend Obama by 40% on the negative advertising.

Based on the ads we've seen recently, I fail to see how a constant drumbeat of attack ads does much to further educate the electorate on the qualifications and platforms of the candidates.

Lee Atwater showed us attack ads work.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

The source for the number was a discussion this morning on the MSNBC "Morning Joe" program after a report from the Politico website. The discussion went on to say that almost the entire amount will be spent on attack ads in the nine "swing" states. They estimated that the Romney campaign will outspend Obama by 40% on the negative advertising.

Based on the ads we've seen recently, I fail to see how a constant drumbeat of attack ads does much to further educate the electorate on the qualifications and platforms of the candidates.

Mitt Romney won the nomination, as of today, using strictly negative ads. First he went after Newt Gingrich, then Rick Santorum spending 76 million dollars. I have never heard a positive ad advocating how Romney would create jobs or reduce the deficit, except for the same old tired rhetoric of more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires and less regulation for banks and Wall Street.

Originally Posted by janmcn

Mitt Romney won the nomination, as of today, using strictly negative ads. First he went after Newt Gingrich, then Rick Santorum spending 76 million dollars. I have never heard a positive ad advocating how Romney would create jobs or reduce the deficit, except for the same old tired rhetoric of more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires and less regulation for banks and Wall Street.

All those UNTRUE depressing ads by the Obama campaign, criticized as "garbage" within his party......they were really honest and upfront stuff.

Thus far and it is early, Obama is winning the "crap" ad thing hands down

They will and have both gone negative...only Obama has gone into the gutter...his own party's words

"The ham-handed attack ads from Obama’s campaign on Mitt Romney’s former firm Bain Capital have drawn a lot of ire from other Democrats — and not only because they were sloppily fact-checked (the ads hit Romney for layoffs that happened long after he left Bain) and because a leading Obama money bundler is a Bain executive himself.

Chiming in with various degrees of disapproval were Newark’s Mayor Cory Booker (who called the attacks “nauseating”), former representative Harold Ford, Obama car czar Steven Rattner, Senator Mark Warner, and former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell"

Attacks on Bain Could Backfire - Michael Barone - National Review Online

"If you want more jobs created, you don’t go around attacking job creators."

For sure they BOTH do it....

"Seeking to turn the image of laid-off workers back on President Obama, Mitt Romney's campaign launched an attack advertisement highlighting a California solar panel manufacturer that received more than $500 million in taxpayer funding before going bankrupt and laying off 1,100 workers.

The ad comes after the Obama campaign portrayed Romney as a callous corporate raider whose private-equity firm, Bain Capital, valued profits over workers.

The Romney ad features grainy video clips of Obama and ominous music as a narrator details a series of so-called green energy companies that received billions in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees that ultimately went bankrupt or failed. Worse than just the loss of tax dollars, the narrator says, is that according to a government watchdog report, many of the loan guarantees were offered to Democratic donors' "friends and family."

Romney Attack Ad on Solyndra Looks to Hurt Obama's Likability - The Ballot 2012 (usnews.com)

i would prefer that candidates still be allowed to fund-raise - BUT - they would not be allowed to place any campaign ads into the media.

some campaign funds could be used for travel to personal appearances and food - that's it!

the bulk of the funds would be required to be distributed to charitable organizations according to the candidate's instructions. public service announcements, prepared in matter-of-fact format rather than campaign format could then be provided via media so that voters could decide who to vote for based on their attitude toward giving.

wouldn't matter how long the campaign season was - the longer the better for charitable organizations and we would not have to listen to attack ads!

Originally Posted by Bucco

"The ham-handed attack ads from Obama’s campaign on Mitt Romney’s former firm Bain Capital have drawn a lot of ire from other Democrats — and not only because they were sloppily fact-checked (the ads hit Romney for layoffs that happened long after he left Bain) and because a leading Obama money bundler is a Bain executive himself.

Chiming in with various degrees of disapproval were Newark’s Mayor Cory Booker (who called the attacks “nauseating”), former representative Harold Ford, Obama car czar Steven Rattner, Senator Mark Warner, and former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell"

Attacks on Bain Could Backfire - Michael Barone - National Review Online

"If you want more jobs created, you don’t go around attacking job creators."

And you can add to that list all the Republicans that attacked Bain: ie Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, John McCain, Rudy Guiliani, Rick Perry, etc.