Report: Hovde put $4M of own money into Senate run
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Republican Eric Hovde has put $4 million of his own money into his U.S. Senate bid, newly released campaign finance reports show.
Filings with the Federal Election Commission posted online Tuesday show Hovde, a hedge fund manager in his first run for office, contributed $3.75 million to his campaign and loaned it another $250,000. He has spent $3.8 million since entering the race March 8.
Hovde faces former Gov. Tommy Thompson, former U.S. Rep. Mark Neumann and state Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald in the Aug. 14 primary. The winner will advance to take on Democratic U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin in the race to fill the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl. Republicans view the seat as one of at least three they need to win majority control of the Senate.
Hovde's personal wealth has given him an advantage over the other Republicans seeking the GOP nomination. Hovde has spent an estimated $3 million on television ads since early April, easily outpacing his GOP rivals as he attempts to build name recognition with the primary just a month away.
That name recognition is vital for Hovde as he faces Thompson, who served as governor for 14 years but who hasn't been on the ballot in Wisconsin since 1998.
Neumann, who has spent millions of his own money on past races, has yet to tap into his personal wealth for the Senate campaign. He has benefited from the Club for Growth, a conservative anti-tax interest group, spending on his behalf to run a television ad attacking both Hovde and Thompson.
Over the most recent three-month reporting period ending in June, Thompson led all Republicans with $834,000 followed by Neumann at $733,000, Hovde with $237,000 and Fitzgerald at $41,000.
Baldwin, the only Democrat in the race, raised more than all four Republicans combined in the most recent quarter, collecting $2.2 million compared to their $1.8 million.
Baldwin announced her fundraising totals last week and the Republicans released theirs on Monday. Detailed reports showing how much they've spent, and how much they've given their own campaigns, were being posted Tuesday on the FEC website.
Hovde reported having about $547,000 cash on hand. Neumann has about $790,000. Thompson said he had $764,000 cash on hand. Fitzgerald's report listing that was not immediately available.
Baldwin's campaign said she had $3.5 million cash on hand.
A Marquette University Law School poll released last week showed Hovde had gained on Thompson, but he still trailed him 35 percent to 23 percent. Neumann was third at 10 percent and Fitzgerald was last at 6 percent. Twenty-five percent were undecided, the same as in the prior month's poll.
The race was within the 4.8 percentage point margin of error for matchups between Baldwin and each of the four Republicans.
Jul 18, 2012 at 7:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
And you guys should be so sad to see your rich buddy Herb retiring. Herb who? Gee, I don't know. I guess the guy who slept thru all his terms. Maybe he was counting all his money. But I forgot that we are only supposed to show class envy when it's the Repubs with money.
Jul 17, 2012 at 11:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Baldwin has 3.5 million on hand...quit whining , dems.
Jul 17, 2012 at 11:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh good, more important information from the left who are so happy they have been given one choice to represent them. Their happiness has led them to offer such kind and meaningful information others were begging them for. Every one (of them) knows not a single person has all the needed information until they drop in their two cents on a person they aren't voting for anyway.
I wonder when they will step forward and talk about the rich democrat that is retiring from that spot, oh never mind, money only matters when one side spends it.
Jul 17, 2012 at 8:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Good! Another business leader stepping up to help try to take control of an out of step Govt. We néed a lot more of this on all levels.
Jul 17, 2012 at 4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
goodamerican...just list a couple of articles or research where Dems give more than Repubs.
Jul 17, 2012 at 4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Good...where is the graph you mentioned? What article? The sources I read per your recommendation seem to back the NY times article and Brooks' research.
Jul 17, 2012 at 4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hovde better step it up !!... Scooter and ROJO are proof it takes at least 10M to pull the wool over the eyes of the Badger State.
Jul 17, 2012 at 4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Thanks, donnaw--I'll check it out.
Jul 17, 2012 at 4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
goodamerican...what is EI?
Jul 17, 2012 at 4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Way to keep it mature GoodAmerican, sorry if you missed yet another point. I will go discuss it with children even they seem to understand the issues.
Jul 17, 2012 at 4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
goodamerican....here's another source: Nicholas Kristy in the NY Times wrote, "Bleeding Heart Tightwads." where are your sources for refuting Brooks and sources that refute the premise that republicans are more charitable than democrats. Democrats like to think the govt should do the giving, not the individual.
Jul 17, 2012 at 4:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eagle - I get what you are saying! I also feel both parties suck equally and only care of about having the power and the ability to point the finger at someone else to make everyone think its the other parties fault their lives aren't as good as they should be. Both parties are completely corrupt. Unfortunately, blind party followers of both sides are unable to look at their party for what they truely are! Very Rich, Used Car Salesman/women!
GoodAmerican, I also understand we are stuck with the current democracy system in place and until their is a huge shake up which I don't see in the near future, yes we will have to vote for one of the people on the current list. I'm sure you got Eagles point though, probably just wanted to debate for a while, I'm thinking!
Jul 17, 2012 at 3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
You obviously don't pay much attention to elections outside of the two parties.
Jul 17, 2012 at 3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
So you are saying my only options are a party that claims to be for smaller government but in reality increases it at a staggering rate including spending, or a party that displays a complete lack of knowledge to anything economical and increases their power through the mask of compassion? Why would I ever willingly allow myself to be a part of granting those people more power? Is that not the definition of insanity?
Jul 17, 2012 at 3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
GoodAmerican now you are catching on, stop voting for the ones that continue to give themselves power and also start looking at limiting government to a point of minimalism. yes it is very simple no need to complicate it by showing loyalty to one of the established two parties. Is it not insane that 80% of the people blindly follow one of the two parties and then complain about the decisions those parties make? who is to blame, the politicians or the fools that give them the power?
Jul 17, 2012 at 3:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
professor...Arthur C Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University did a study and wrote the book, "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism."
Jul 17, 2012 at 3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
stop being sheep and voting for the two parties, its pretty simple, the power of the vote can take away their ever growing and abused power.
Jul 17, 2012 at 3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
donnaw--what's your source for that?
Jul 17, 2012 at 3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
What's interesting is that republicans give more to charity, volunteer more hours and donate more blood than democrats.
Jul 17, 2012 at 2:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
OMG you guys actually believe that? both parties are in it for themselves and their power.
Jul 17, 2012 at 2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think, as a rule, 'rich' R's tend to look out for their own; 'rich' D's tend to show more concern for others. I realize that's a pretty broad brush, but I think, for the most part, it's true.
Jul 17, 2012 at 2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Good point gonfo. I have said this for years. How do we have millionaires and billionaires on oth sides of the aisle representing the people that elect them. We don't. It's a farce.
Jul 17, 2012 at 2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Am I to believe based on the previous posts on here that only Republican's have the ability to be rich? So a rich Democrat is able to understand a middle class person better than a rich Republican? Really???? Is that the concensus I'm reading? I thought anyone rich was suppose to be the enemy no matter what! If you don't think the Democrat's are as filthy rich as the Republican's, just go to opensecrets.org to see the truth. If you want to see what all of their net worth, annual income and who their donors are, go to the site! The truth may not be what you want to see or read about but both parties have nothing to worry about in the finance department except for how to spend our money of course!
Jul 17, 2012 at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
seems appropriate a rich guy would be in the running for Herb Kohl's seat.
Jul 17, 2012 at 1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
He has to use his own money since Walker put the Political Campaign Fund into the general fund.
Jul 17, 2012 at 1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
He wouldn't invest his own money if he couldn't profit.
Jul 17, 2012 at 1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
baegucb
And whose money is Obama using???
Jul 17, 2012 at 12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
usaret: don't be silly. Mitt learned that lesson the hard way. Now he's not using his own money, but that of other wealthy people.
Jul 17, 2012 at 12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
It is of course well know that no Democrat running for office would try to buy it! That because no Democrat running for office wants to use his/her own money when OTHERS IS AVAILABLE.
Jul 17, 2012 at 12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ah yes...this is the guy complaining that too many articles are written about poor people and the effects of the recession. Sounds like the poster boy for the right wing.
Jul 17, 2012 at 12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
He hasn't lived in Wisconsin since he was a kid (and a rich spoiled one at that). What does he know about anything here? Sure looks like he's trying to buy the Senate seat. How many Swiss bank accounts does he have?
Jul 17, 2012 at 12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Just another "Distraction"
http://gazettextra.com/photos/2012/jul/1...
Jul 17, 2012 at 12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
http://gazettextra.com/photos/2012/jul/1...
Jul 17, 2012 at 12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wow!!! this job must really pay well to spend that much of your own money. OR, are you just thirsty for power.
Jul 17, 2012 at 10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh good. Another rich Republican who is going to try and convince me that he actually gives a CRAP about any of my issues/concerns. Just what we need.
Jul 17, 2012 at 10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
At least that money has a source we can all see.
Open up the books on all candidates for all donors. All candidates need to own up to the money they use. Anyone disagree?
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.