Akin’s use of the word “legitimate” will arguably have longer-term (if subtle and immeasurable) repercussions than his easily debunked magical medical thinking. Outrage over Akin’s term “legitimate rape” has been, rightfully, widespread. This week both the New York Times and the New Yorker published pieces written by editors that noted the significance of Akin’s qualifying adjective.

In her blog, “Close Read,” senior New Yorker editor Amy Davidson asked, “What is ‘illegitimate rape’?” Akin offered some idea when he cosponsored a bill that tried to change language about federal funding for abortions for victims of “rape” to cover only “forcible rape.” And on Monday the New York Times published an editorial explaining that though Akin’s comments had proved embarrassing for many Republicans, his views fit with beliefs of the party’s abortion opponents. Many claim that women who are not really raped would abuse a rape exception to get abortions.

* * *

Another debate about what “really raped” and “not really raped” means is going on at the moment over the four allegations made against Julian Assange by two women in Sweden. These include one allegation that Assange had unprotected sex with a woman without her knowledge (she had specified that she only wished to have sex if a condom was used) and another accusing Assange of beginning sex with a woman who was asleep.

Yesterday the Times published an op-ed written by Michael Moore and Oliver Stone called “WikiLeaks and Free Speech.” The lauded left-wing filmmakers argued that since they believe WikiLeaks to be an important and worthy project, Ecuador, in granting Assange diplomatic asylum in its London embassy, “has acted in accordance with important principles of international human rights.” Presumably, the rights of the women who have accused Assange of sex crimes to see him fairly brought to justice are not covered by Moore and Stone’s version of international human rights. They introduced the allegations using a patronizing mansplaining tone: “Most Americans, Britons and Swedes are unaware that Sweden has not formally charged Mr. Assange with any crime. Rather, it has issued a warrant for his arrest to question him about allegations of sexual assault in 2010.” Legal expert David Allen Green had already addressed this point and other confusions surrounding the case for the New Statesman on Monday. “[T]o those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged,” he wrote, “the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.” The rest of Moore and Stone’s piece is based on the logic of the myths that Green’s post debunks.

Three days after Paul Ryan became the presumptive Republican vice presidential candidate, he made a pilgrimage on Tuesday to the Las Vegas gambling palace of Sheldon Adelson, the casino tycoon who is spending more than any other donor to try to send Mr. Ryan and Mitt Romney to the White House. No reporters were allowed, perhaps because the campaign didn’t want them asking uncomfortable questions about the multiple federal investigations into the company behind Mr. Adelson’s wealth.

Those questions, though, aren’t going away, and neither are the ones about the judgment of Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan in drawing ever closer to a man whose business background should lead them to back away — fast. By not repudiating Mr. Adelson’s vow to spend as much as $100 million on their behalf, the two candidates seem more eager to keep the “super PAC” dollars flowing than to preserve the integrity of their campaign.

The issues swirling about Mr. Adelson’s business practices are not new and can hardly come as a surprise to the Romney campaign. Last year, his company, the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, announced that it was under investigation by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act — specifically, that it bribed Chinese officials for help in expanding its casino empire in Macau. Later, the F.B.I. became involved, and even Chinese regulators looked askance at the company’s conduct, fining it $1.6 million for violating foreign exchange rules, The Times reported on Monday.

Recent media reports have said that Romney has caught up with the president in fundraising, but they involve a slightly different comparison -- between all the political committees raising money for each presidential candidate. In Romney's case, that means also counting checks to the Republican National Committee and a joint fundraising vehicle, Romney Victory, that will send millions of dollars to a host of state-level party committees. Romney's official campaign committee has never beaten Obama's in fundraising for any period of time in the 2012 election cycle.

Both campaigns combine their own fundraising with the amounts raised by their respective party committee and joint fundraising vehicles in their press releases announcing monthly totals. This gives the impression of much larger war chests than the official campaign committees actually have.

It is true that, for all intents and purposes, money sent to the Republican and Democratic national committees will be spent to elect their respective nominees. And Romney and the RNC are currently outraising Obama's team. This was noted in a Tuesday email from Obama to his supporters: "Over the past two months, we have been outraised by our opponents." In a Monday email solicitation, Vice President Joe Biden raised the same worry in stark terms: "If we don't win this election, it will be because we didn't close the spending gap when we could."

But federal rules that limit how the parties can spend their money, particularly on television ads, force the candidate committees to raise huge sums for themselves.

In 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama raked in $750 million, shattering fundraising records and earning a reputation as the single best fundraiser in the history of American politics.

Now, Obama faces the very real prospect that he will be outraised (and outspent) in this election by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

So how does Romney’s fundraising to date stack up with that of Obama during his 2008 campaign? We break it down after the jump.

* * *
Obama the candidate has continued to outraise Romney the candidate this cycle. (Check out this great Paul Blumenthal analysis.) But when you add in affiliated committees, Romney is opening up a sizable lead.