Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Herb Kohl FEC Filings Do Not Tip Hand as to 2012 Election Plans

Bookmark and Share

Wisconsin Democratic Senator Herb Kohl's cryptic behavior on Tuesday - that found him refusing to answer a National Journal reporter's question about his 2012 reelection plans - had D.C. playing up another round of will-he-or-won't-he again this week.

Some of the first speculations that Kohl might not run came in late 2010 when he emerged from the third quarter, some two plus years from Election Day, with only $25,725 cash on hand.

That view, however, was premature, given Kohl's past FEC filing history, and how he funds his U.S Senate campaigns.

Six years prior, after the 3rd Quarter of 2004, Kohl's campaign had even less cash on hand - just $20,127.

Then, in the 4th quarter of last year, the Senator injected $1 million into his campaign via a candidate loan, which was then viewed as a sign by many that Kohl was assuredly going to run.

But even if Kohl hadn't loaned himself that money, he still would have had more cash on hand at the end of 2010 ($4,438) than he did at the end of 2004 ($1,493), when he was en route to his largest U.S. Senate margin of victory in his four campaigns to date.

In fact, Kohl's end of the year cash on hand amounts have been pretty low throughout the decade:

Herb Kohl U.S. Senate Campaign Cash on Hand at End of the Year, 2001-2010

Year
Amount
2001
$6,187
2002
$14,474
2003
$14,291
2004
$1,493
2005
$4,147,496
2006
$115,579
2007
$4,649
2008
$4,198
2009
$24,476
2010
$1,004,348
Table compiled by Smart Politics from FEC data.

The problem with making any judgments about Kohl's candidacy, or non-candidacy, based on the amount of money in his campaign coffers is that he does not fundraise like most Senators - due to his large personal financial wealth.

For example, over the last 10 years, Kohl has received only $450 from political action committees (all in 2006) and only $120 from political party committees (also in 2006).

Kohl also doesn't actively fundraise from individuals, receiving only slightly more than $16,000 in total itemized and non-itemized contributions over the last decade.

Senator Kohl has received just $2,077 from individuals for the current election cycle thus far (16 quarters) - about on par with the $3,245 in individual donations he tallied at this stage of the campaign at the end of 2004.

The simple truth is that Kohl regularly injects his own money into his campaign - through a loan or contribution - and has done so in 10 of the 16 quarters during the current cycle since 2007.

In fact, the Senator has contributed to or loaned his campaign amounts of $100,000 or more in eight quarters since 2003.

And thus while the $1 million loan seems like a 'tell' that Kohl must be a candidate in the 2012 race, keep in mind Kohl has loaned himself much larger amounts in the past (although later in the election cycle):

· $2 million in the 1st quarter of 2005
· $2.7 million in the 4th quarter of 2005
· $1.55 million in the 4th quarter of 2006

Overall, since 2001, Senator Kohl has contributed over $925,000 to his 2006 and 2012 reelection campaigns and loaned his campaigns $7.25 million.

What is therefore more determinate of whether Kohl will run in 2012 is not so much the $1 million loan he made a few months ago, but whether or not that money has yet been spent.

The answer to that question will not be known for a few more weeks.

And so, until Kohl officially announces his intent to run, one can only wonder if 2012 will mark the Return of Russ - feeding off the crazed political climate in the Badger State these days.

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Previous post: What's in a Photo? A Political Analysis of Gubernatorial Portraits
Next post: Klobuchar-Franken Moving Up the List of Oldest U.S. Senate Delegations in Minnesota History

Leave a comment


Remains of the Data

Which States Have the Longest and Shortest Election Day Voting Hours?

Residents in some North Dakota towns have less than half as many hours to cast their ballots as those in New York State.

Political Crumbs

No 100-Year Curse for Roberts

Defeating his Tea Party primary challenger Milton Wolf with just 48.1 percent of the vote, Pat Roberts narrowly escaped becoming the first elected U.S. Senator from Kansas to lose a renomination bid in 100 years. The last - and so far only - elected U.S. Senator to lose a Kansas primary was one-term Republican Joseph Bristow in 1914. Bristow was defeated by former U.S. Senator Charles Curtis who went on to win three terms before becoming Herbert Hoover's running mate in 1928. Only one other U.S. Senator from the Sunflower State has lost a primary since the passage of the 17th Amendment: Sheila Frahm in 1996. Frahm was appointed to fill Bob Dole's seat earlier that year and finished 13.2 points behind Sam Brownback in the three-candidate primary field. Overall, incumbent senators from Kansas have won 29 times against two defeats in the direct vote era. (Curtis also lost a primary in 1912 to Walter Stubbs, one year before the nation moved to direct elections).


The Second Time Around

Former Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez became the seventh major party or second place gubernatorial candidate in Colorado to get a second chance at the office when he narrowly won his party's nomination last month. Two of the previous six candidates were successful. Democrat Alva Adams lost his first gubernatorial bid to Benjamin Eaton in 1884, but was victorious two years later against William Meyer. Democrat Charles Johnson placed third in 1894 behind Republican Albert McIntyre and Populist incumbent Governor David Waite but returned as the Fusion (Democrat/Populist) nominee in 1898 and defeated GOPer Henry Wolcott. Gubernatorial candidates who received a second chance but lost both general elections include Democrat Thomas Patterson (1888, 1914), Progressive Edward Costigan (1912, 1914), Republican Donald Brotzman (1954, 1956), and Republican David Strickland (1978, 1986).


more POLITICAL CRUMBS

Humphrey School Sites
CSPG
Humphrey New Media Hub

Issues />

<div id=
Abortion
Afghanistan
Budget and taxes
Campaign finances
Crime and punishment
Economy and jobs
Education
Energy
Environment
Foreign affairs
Gender
Health
Housing
Ideology
Immigration
Iraq
Media
Military
Partisanship
Race and ethnicity
Reapportionment
Redistricting
Religion
Sexuality
Sports
Terrorism
Third parties
Transportation
Voting