When you run for office in a state, should the majority of your campaign donations come from that state (from the people who have to live with your policies if you win)? I am not planning to answer that question, I simply put it out there for everyone to think about.

On July 15th, The Washington Free Beacon reported that only 14 percent of the money raised by Stacey Abrams in her race for governor of Georgia came from inside the State of Georgia.

The article reports:

Nearly half the money raised by Abrams’s campaign and leadership committee ($22.7 million) came from donors in three deep-blue states and one liberal territory that wants to be a state but never will: California ($10.2 million), Washington, D.C. ($6.4 million), New York ($3.6 million), and Delaware ($2.5 million). The result is not entirely surprising given that Abrams recently described Georgia as “the worst state in the country to live.”

Those astonishing figures stand in stark contrast to the fundraising numbers posted by Abrams’s opponent, Gov. Brian Kemp (R., Ga.), who has raised most of his campaign funds from in-state donors. More than 83 percent of the $31.5 million raised by Kemp’s campaign and leadership committee came from Georgia residents, the analysis found.

So the takeaway here is that the people inside George want to see Brian Kemp elected and the people outside Georgia want to see Stacey Abrams elected. If you were a voter aware of this fact, who would you vote for?

It will be interesting to see who wins. Can elections really be bought in America?