Meg Whitman: The $71 million candidate

June 6, 2010

According to public campaign records, Meg Whitman has so far spent $71 million of her personal fortune to become the next governor of California–and that is just for the primary. [Associated Press]

The former eBay CEO is expected to prevail in Tuesday’s Republican primary, setting up a general election race in the fall against Democrat Jerry Brown.

The Whitman campaign has spent a total of $81 million on what critics call a “lavish campaign,” including a gaggle of high-paid political consultants and a tsunami of paid advertising. Her top political consultant Mike Murphy, for example, is being paid $90,000 a month.

A Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm, Smart Media Group, has already been paid $47 million for its services to Whitman.

The personal spending stands in marked contrast to the Whitman campaign platform, which calls for a dramatic cut in state spending and a “common sense” budgeting approach for California.

Staffers defend the heavy spending, saying Whitman is trying to run a “smart, strategic campaign and wants to make sure all Californians hear her plans before they choose their next governor.

Jerry Brown, by contrast, filed spending reports of $400,000, including $4,400 for flights on Southwest Airlines.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Why isn’t anyone mentioning any of the other candidates? Personally, I like Independent Chelene Nightingale. What sucks is that although this is the first year in a long time that Independents can vote for Republican or Democrat in the primaries, Republicans or Democrats can’t vote for Independents. How rigged is that? It automatically keeps the numbers skewed for the two major parties – which is why they’re major. I’m hoping that she gets enough Independent votes to make it through the primaries then hopefully more people will be able to hear what she has to say and we can pull a big upset through in November. Check her out at

I’m really just amazed at some of the people who are deemed credible by the general population. America has become a place where your status is a function of how well you lie.

Simple fact? Meg Whitman will be colluding with the Liberal-Democrats who carries all the power in the Sacramento Assembly. But Steve Poizner–although not perfect has promised to eradicate the “Sanctuary laws” that has crippled California’s welfare system for US citizens and legal residents. He will fight the Liberal extremists who are heavily taxing you, to pay for–ANCHOR BABIES, the family and the millions of illegal aliens.who collect from the IRS your money. NumbersUSA for those who want to learn the major consequences of illegal aliens.

There is no doubt that “Moonbeam” Jerry Brown has more governmental experience than Meg Whitman, and far greater name recognition. In addition, even if you despise his policies (what are they? ) , he is a likable personality. Although I will vote for Whitman, it will be a shame for a Republican to win and be saddled soon with the greatest financial disaster to ever occur to California: Bankruptcy! The California debt is unsustainable! The legislature has over spent, and for years.

I guess that the choice comes down to a political hack, or a dreamer. “None of the above” is sounding better and better. Enough is enough!

You have a good point there, perhaps the reason nobody really worthy is stepping up is that it would be like asking for the captain’s job on the Titanic knowing that the iceberg has your name on it.

I thought you were in Panama.

Yep, California just might get the best Governor that money can buy, i don’t know if being the CEO of Ebay qualifies her for anything. She didn’t create Ebay, but was brought in later. She did do a good job. But understand: most companies actually make a product. eBay makes…well, nothing. Moreover, its core workers are — you, the public who bids on its own material. And this is her main credential to be governor of California: that she ran a business that makes no product, whose core wok is done by non-employees she doesn’t manage.

I just don’t see Brown as all that much better though.

What California needs is a none of the above vote.

Spending her own money is certainly acceptable but not the crux of the problem. She apparently opposes the Arizona law and would have voted it down, according to the ads of her opponent. How could she save money when illegals are overrunning the state – demanding free services left and right? Just another snake oil salesman, pardon me, woman.

And she is going to cut spending in California? This certainly is a fine example.

I think the distinction is that she is spending HER money.

Her platform is to cut the spending of Holly’s money, and racket’s money, and other taxpayer’s money.

I am all for that.