Romney Pumping More of His Own Money Into Campaign
Mitt Romney's campaign has turned into something unusual: A hybrid between self-financing and individual donations. The Washington Post reports that with the end of the third quarter, Romney will have raised a total $40 million to date from outside donors plus $15 million from his own personal fortune.
Interestingly, the infusion of $15 million has been done in the form of loans, not direct contributions. If they had been contributions, this would have triggered the "Millionaires Amendment" in McCain-Feingold, which would increase the maximum amount that individuals would be allowed to donated to any of Romney's Republican opponents.
Which does invite the question: Will these loans ever be repaid?
Update: Upon further research, it turns out that McCain-Feingold excluded the presidential campaigns from the Millionaires Amendment. However, this still begs the question of whether these loans will ever be repaid. After all, to raise money for that purpose would effectively mean the candidate was soliciting money for his own personal bank account, i.e. bribery.
Comments (8)
Daniel wrote on September 30, 2007 10:44 PM:Check out the newly updated Senate Rankings.
party-of-one wrote on October 1, 2007 7:50 AM:No fan of Romney's here. I must admit, I feel better about personal fortunes in politics than about the major funding from health care, military contractors, banking industry, oil industry, WalMart and its uninspected, unsafe Chinese imports, etc. Didn't Kerry use his wife's fortune for his campaign?
The questions and debate about personal fortunes in politics will be even more prominent if Bloomberg enters as an independent to fill a vacuum created if Hillary and Rudy are the two, widely unacceptable major party nominees.
Not the senator wrote on October 1, 2007 9:28 AM:If Romney wins the loans will be repaid, if not, the committee will remain open and the loans will stay on the books. Every once in awhile, especially if the candidate runs for another high profile office, old debts will be retired but generally if you loan money to a campaign you are only going to see it if the campaign is successful and can raise money after the election.
I'm still waiting to get repaid from a 1980 State Senate race. Damn that Reagan groundswell!
wes2 wrote on October 1, 2007 12:27 PM:Would that Edwards were as rich as his critics imply! Sigh...
Jane wrote on October 1, 2007 12:46 PM:Party of One: data hurts, Hillary is an accpetable candidate to most Americans. There is a subset of people who still believe Fox but they are going to be voting ReThug anyway.
I will be highly amused if we have a Republican canidate, Bloomberg and a religious right candidate running. This would ensure Hillary's election.
DCCyclone wrote on October 1, 2007 12:57 PM:To call it "bribery," Eric, is silly.
What Romney is doing is a routine practice in self-funding campaigns. And, yes, the self-funder is looking to others to "retire" his/her campaign "debt." But the money really was spent on a campaign, and contributors reimbursing the candidate after winning are effectively reimbursing for campaign expenses, not lining the elected official's pocket.
DCCyclone wrote on October 1, 2007 12:58 PM:To call it "bribery," Eric, is silly.
What Romney is doing is a routine practice in self-funding campaigns. And, yes, the self-funder is looking to others to "retire" his/her campaign "debt." But the money really was spent on a campaign, and contributors reimbursing the candidate after winning are effectively reimbursing for campaign expenses, not lining the elected official's pocket.
mattstan wrote on October 1, 2007 2:08 PM:However, this still begs the question
No it doesn't.
