Will Whitman's spending backfire?

The political graveyards of California are littered with the bones of candidates who tried to get elected to statewide office on the basis of their own great wealth. Steve Westly, Al Checchi, Jane Harmon, Michael Huffington, Darrell Issa ... lots of people though they could buy the job of governor or senator. Most of them failed -- in part because they couldn't craft a message that appealed to the voters.
But I think they also failed because on some level, California voters don't like being bought. The idea that someone is so rich that he or she can spend around $50 million to get elected governor is kind of appaling, particularly in an era when people aren't so happy with the very rich.
Calbuzz had a little fun looking at all the things Meg Whitman could buy with the $40 million she's already spent (Madonna's apartment, Conan O'Brien's silence, a Cape Cod wastewater plant), but really: You have to wonder what she could have done for society if she'd used that cash for something other than her vanity campaign.
I have no polling data on why mega-millionaires don't win; the current polls show Meg's ahead of Jerry Brown . But I'm not sure her cash and her obscene spending won't become a negative at some point.
Also from this author
Most Commented On
Recent comments
- As though I'm really talking - May 20, 2013
- Agree with the gist, - May 20, 2013
- Well now that you know our plan... - May 20, 2013
- "If the over-grown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous" - May 20, 2013
- Yes, and many of those things should be legal - May 20, 2013
- You're sure I'm indigent? - May 20, 2013
- I agree that transients can be valuable members of the community - May 20, 2013
- Illegals are liable for the same taxes as everyone else. - May 20, 2013
- He knows because he has the wisdom of a bigot - May 20, 2013
- No, "almost everyone" doesn't know that. - May 20, 2013









Comments