British electoral law forbids different campaign organisations acting in concert unless they have a shared cap on spending.
You know, we - if, for example, Jerry Brown can withstand, you know, what will probably end up being $200 million of spending by his opponent and get elected governor of California, that will be a big victory in the nation's largest state.
I think it is wrong to spend $4 or $5 million in a campaign.
Spending for congressional campaigns is getting to be like the arms race.
You have a burden going into any campaign when you're raising money to fund that effort because there's always a desire to spend more money than you have.
The usual test under the Federal Election Campaign Act for whether something counts as a campaign expenditure is whether the obligation would have existed but for the campaign. If so, it is not a campaign expenditure.
The only way a challenger can compete with the built-in advantages of incumbency is to spend money.
I'm beholding to nobody, I've spent you know, tens and tens of millions of dollars on the campaign.
I've been outspent by my opponents every time I've run for U.S. Senate.
Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what is appropriate.
If I remember correctly, the most efficient campaign in modern times, in terms of burn rate, had been Obama's 2012 reelect, which I believe the number was they spent 37 cents at every dollar.
I do not believe wealthy candidates should spend vast resources in their own campaigns.
The cost of congressional and presidential campaigns has been leaping every two or four years. I think this year it will be 60 percent more than 1996; well over twice as much as in 1992 in the presidential and congressional races.
