gergroy said:
that would make sense if that is what Perot did. At the end of the day, perot only used about 12 million of his own money. Perot was a popular candidate who aquired the support based on his own ideas and platform. |
Seems that Perot ended up spending $26 of his own money in the first two weeks of October alone ($46 million as of Oct. 14). He also said he expected to spend $60 millions. Its also important to remember that election were much different back then (much less money). Just for reference, Clinton and Bush each accepted public funding and were limited to $55 million. Granted, they also had the parties raising money for them as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/24/us/1992-campaign-campaign-finances-despite-economy-clinton-sets-record-for-funds.html
I think this shows that Perot's viability was largely a product of his ability to spend money. I mean he single-handedly was able to outspend the public funding Clinton and Bush received. Finally, I want to emphasize that campaign spending has only increased since then. If Perot tried to run a campaign by spending $60 million today, he would likely be overshadowed by the big guns. Also, even with all that spending, Perot wasn't able to win any electoral votes even with 19% of the vote (kind of shows the importance of campaign strategy).
KInd of gives an idea of the increase campaign spending http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/totals.php?cycle=2008