Campaign Spending: A little perspective

Yesterday California held it's primary election.  Among the most notable of stories was the win by Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, for the Republican gubernatorial nomination.  While much has been written about how she bought the election, which in many ways is true, I am pondering the $81 million she spent on this election.  At the current rate of spending per voter, she would need to spend over $327 million leading up to the November vote, over $100 millionaire than John McCain spent running for President.  For more on the spending, checkout Chris Kelly's article in the Huffington Post.
When I think about the ridiculous sums spent on campaigns, I get angry.  And I look for a perspective on the situation.

If we took  the $81 million already spent, just by Whitman and add $150 million which seems to be the consensus estimate of what she will spend up to November, we get $231 million.

$231 million spent just in the education system represents:

4010 additional teachers in our schools OR
$755 more spent per student OR
6,000+ additional library staff OR
506,000+ more computers and technology available in classrooms OR
5,000+ specialists in schools for everything from reading and physical education to after school programs and support for the gifted.

And while Ms Whitman is an obvious target, the amount spent on campaigns across the country is atrocious.  Especially when you think of other places the money could go: education, health care, jobs, small business loans, etc.  I wonder if our politicians think about how their exorbitant spending reflects on them.  Paying for a private jet and airport fees to fly what is a 33 mile drive could hire 2 of the estimated 100,000 teachers across the nation who are being laid off for the upcoming year.  Why should we elect them to do anything when they don't really know how to budget well?  Where do you wish the campaign funds went?  How much should they be allowed to spend?