ABC News reports that the Romney campaign announced today that it raised $106.1 million in June, its best fundraising month to date ... far exceeding May's total of more than $76 million, out-raising the Obama campaign by $16 million.

Politico reports that the Obama campaign raised only $71 million.

And since the primary season concluded and Romney officially became the nominee, the Obama machine has been spending like a drunken socialist ... outspending Romney 3-to-1, and the Obama ads have been over 75 percent negative.

Meanwhile, over at Human Events, John Hayward thoroughly debunks Obama's campaign spending mythology:

Political candidates often make pronouncements that become matters of interpretation, as allies and surrogates scramble to explain what the candidate really meant, or how inaccurate statements can be interpreted in such a way that the point raised is defensible.

ot outright, bald-faced, demonstrable lies, like the one Barack Obama has been telling about campaign spending in his 2004 and 2008 races. Obama's statements are absolutely false, and cannot be "spun" in any charitable manner that would get them dismissed as slight exaggerations.

Bizarrely, even though Obama was noted for pulling in a flood of campaign cash in his previous races - much of it from suspicious, unverified sources -- his new campaign strategy involves whining about how Mitt Romney and allied independent groups are outspending him. Because the media was completely uninterested in harping upon the point in 2008, and certainly isn't going to bring it up now, you might not recall that Obama actually broke a high-profile promise to abide by public campaign financing rules in 2008, because he was hauling in so much money from donors.

The often-repeated Obama lie about being outspent by Romney-aligned Super PACs was debunked last week. Obama Super PACs have spent more than Romney Super PACs, and the Obama groups have been far more negative. Perhaps the Romney groups will spend more during the heated final months of the campaign, but as things stand right now, the Obama narrative about evil Republican Super PACs burying him under negative ads, which his allies can't afford to respond to, is simply false.

As for the campaigns themselves, Obama began with a $100 million cash advantage, and still has nearly $100 million more in cash on hand. Romney has been doing much better than Obama at fundraising lately, but he had to spend a great deal on the primary campaign, while Obama faced no serious primary opposition.

... Obama's weird effort to twist his current fundraising deficiencies into a narrative in which he has always been a plucky underdog fighting the mighty GOP campaign machine is completely fraudulent.

The President is apparently desperate to keep this mythology floating, because now he's lying about past campaigns, to imply that he's always been an underdog. As reported by the Daily Caller, Obama claimed last week, during a campaign speech in Ohio, that "I got outspent when I ran [the] first tiem for Senate."

This is, to put it charitably, deeply misleading. ... Be sure to read the rest. Hayward goes on to point out that in this day and age, it's a stretch for any incumbent to claim underdog status, given the political advantages of office. It's even more ludicrous to dismiss the media access and executive powers of the presidency as without campaign value, and downright laughable in the case of Barack "We Can't Wait" Obama. But even when only campaign dollars are considered, there is no way Obama should be allowed to portray himself as hopelessly outgunned.