Will Obama's high-spending turn-off donors?

[sbm]

AP reports that Obama spent $1.5 million per day in February. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gg3OITQSrWEcjqDl0g47q7STLcugD8VHTJNO0)

Will this turn-off his donor base, such as university students racked with debt?

(See Conan O'Brien's Harvard Commencement Speech, www.february-7.com/features/conan.htm ("We don't need the money, we just want it.")).

[Sabio]

While the high spending repulses me (because I want that money as a former university student racked with debt), I don't see it as excessive. If he's bringing in that much money, and it's as grass-rooted as they say it is, he should spend it. I'm no campaign-spending guru, but I believe there are some limits to money raised for primaries to be applied to the general election...or do I have that reversed? Anybody know anything about campaign finance law?

[Buckeye GOP]

-Looking back on this post after I wrote it is kind of a meandering rant, but you guys brought up some good points and I have been disingaged for a few days -- now that I am opening the floodgates it just all came out (here is my original comment below):

I am kind of winging this, but I think I know this area about as well as I understand the how the early-Bird rights rights work for the NBA salary cap (enough to feign some knowledge, but when it really comes down to it you can probably check wiki and get a better answer). It used to be that there was a limit of $1,000 per candidate per election, which ment that you could donate $1,000 for the primary and $1,000 for the general election. I think there is some sort of kicker for inflation that allows for increased levels of kickbacks, err I mean influence peddleing, err I mean political speech donations. I have seen a number of people donating about $2,040 or thereabouts during the primaries so it looks like there has been a sizable increase in the amount you can chip in to the candidates. In the early days you could donate as much as you wanted to the party, but that is out and the 529s or 527s or B-52s or U2s or 8675309s or whatever they are have different rules all together. In my mind just let people donate and disclose and let the voters sort 'em out. McCain-Finegold or the 1st amendment it was one or the other and we went for the former, I don't know I was hoping the 1st amendment would win.

As for SBMs original point - I think that the more Obama can be shown to be a typical politician the more it cuts into his mystique. I just think there are a lot of kool-aid drinkers out there who have bought into Obama and have no idea what his platform is. If he comes across as a just like the rest some of the backers will flounder, others probably identify themselves as Obamaites and will justify his typical political practices in their own minds.

Of course, I am sure that I am no differrent in many ways than the "kool-aid drinkers" that I criticized. It is likely that once I decided to back Mitt that there were things he did or positions that he took that if any one else would have done them I would have been screaming, but now that he was my guy I rationalized it in my mind. I think we all do it to a point. Sometimes it is hard to take a step back and recognize that your party, issue, or candidate has its imperfections esepcially when you get worked up about it.

Getting worked up about it, while it has those types of downsides may not be that bad though. Elections really do matter and if you can't get passionate about liberty, justice, and our present/future what are you doing here?