In Missouri, the Romney campaign used more hardball tactics, just it had use them to fix caucuses in Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and anywhere else rules made it possible to thwart the popular will. At the state's largest caucus, the Romney forces agreed to support the Ron Paul slate in order to contest a likely win for Santorum. The meeting degenerated into a fracas and police were called. A couple Ron Paul supporters were arrested. The fact that the leading Republican candidate for president has repeatedly tried to fix the election should make his campaign vulnerable to a RICO prosecution. However, in this case they used the Ron Paul campaign as their sock puppets.
Meanwhile, Romney won easily in Puerto Rico, which will not vote in the general election. His vote total will likely surpass 100,000. If so, Romney is the front runner with just 3.5 million votes to his credit; v. 5.1 million for his remaining three challengers, but giving him more than half the delegates committed thus far, regardless of how they are counted.
Romney claims to have spent little of his own money on his campaign, compared to the $42 million he spent in a losing effort in 2008 (or "lent" to his campaign), but it is likely that much of the money has come from him in a roundabout way. Certainly this campaign has been more expensive, and may have cost $150 million to date.
Not all Romney's contributions are actually measured though. Apparently, the Marriott Corporation has foregone as much as $100 million in revenue by agreeing to stop offering paid adult movies. Romney served on the Marriott board and is named after the entrepreneur who created Marriott. Conservatives called him a purveyor of pornography because of the money Marriott earned from this source. However, this violates their fiduciary duty to stockholders to maximize profit. Will someone challenge them on this issue?
What this really shows of course is that American business cares nothing for the shareholders and will spend an unlimited amount to put their candidate in office because they know the public would like to reform the governance of U.S. corporations, which they would not like.