$60 million (Obama) vs. $75 million (Romney) in May

I just heard for the sixth or seventh time that Obama raised $15 million less than Romney last month. With the new campaign finance laws (or lack of them), is that really surprising? Republicans have more rich people in their ranks -- not a surprise.

I might have been more concerned had I heard that Romney raised $15 million and Obama $0. That would be a true indication of electoral trends.

Of course, one might ask, how about the influence money buys? There's no denying the power of advertising and lobbying. But I wonder what the upper limit of effective campaign spending is. If, as I've heard in the media, the final total will be $1 billion (Obama) vs. $1.3 billion (Romney), will voters feel drowned (or just tune out) in reaction to the tsunami of messages from both campaigns? There has to be a saturation level at which more spending on advertising will have little or no effect. No?