Jonathan Martin links to this ABC News story, which points out that Mitt Romney has already spent more of his own money than Steve Forbes did in 1996 and 2000. ABC reports:
By the end of the third quarter of this year, according to Federal Election Commission reports, Romney had loaned his own campaign $17.4 million in personal funds, not including a donation of a $61,435 Winnebago. That exceeds the $16.5 million Forbes donated to his campaign in all of 1995, and the $12.7 million Forbes had loaned himself at this point in 1999. The campaign of one of Forbes' opponents, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said [at the time], 'Steve Forbes seems intent on buying the election, and according to the FEC law, there's nothing to prevent him from doing it.'
The article points out that similar attacks have not been launched against Romney, at least for now. Still, it's likely that, as the election approaches, one of Romney's opponents will make his fortune an issue. My understanding is that Romney is prepared to spend much more of his own money to win the party's nomination. And he has every right to do so. The problem is that the United States's absurd campaign finance laws give a considerable advantage to candidates who have a personal fortune. It would be yet another historical irony if John McCain were undone by the very cause (or causes) he did so much to champion. One should note, however: Money is important in politics. But it's not decisively important. Forbes lost in 1996 and 2000. And now he's advising this guy, to whom he can donate only $2,300 during the primaries.