Hawks burning through cash faster than it comes in. $35K raised, $38K spent, about $114k cash on hand.

While Paula Hawks was busy hanging out with “Abortion Barbie” Wendy Davis this week, her staff was filing a FEC report that has her burning through her cash faster than it comes in – an apocalyptic sign for a campaign that hasn’t even started in earnest.

Hawks Pre Primary FEC

Taking in $35,484 in a period in which Noem took in nearly three times the amount at 106,000, the Democrat challenger to Congresswoman Kristi Noem doesn’t have the luxury that Noem does – 1.6 million in the bank. And while Noem still managed to bank about $9,000, Hawks is spending more than comes in ($37,812) and eating into her campaign kitty, reducing her cash on hand to $113,705.

To put it in election terms… That’s about one statewide mailing.

What did Hawks spend her campaign cash on?

Some went for rent. She spent about $600 at Ad arts for signs. And then salaries. In fact, $23,578 appears to have gone for salaries during this period, not leaving much for actual campaigning.


And she had her hair done, with $117.06 going to “Vanessens Hair Design.” You know, that probably wasn’t the best buy. If she’d gone with the flow-bee, she would have managed to save a few bucks.

Even with the “Super Mini-Vac” version at 114.90, she could have saved at least a few dollars. And had it on hand any time she needed it.

It’s a thought for a campaign on a tight budget.

10 thoughts on “Hawks burning through cash faster than it comes in. $35K raised, $38K spent, about $114k cash on hand.”

  1. I wonder if Rep. Hawks will file the requisite South Dakota Use Tax return and remit payment to the state for all those Amazon transactions. She certainly did not pay sales tax on any of those.

  2. Two things:
    I notice she’s paying herself a salary. That’s an interesting way to spend what little money you’re raising. Is that typically of challengers?

    Also, I notice that Michael Ewald is on her payroll. I thought he was the State Party spokesman? Is he doing both? Is he now just a Hawks employee? Or did the SDDP realize they couldn’t afford salaries for multiple staff members and decided to spread them out to the campaigns?

    1. SDGOPer, One word to describe the current goings on within the SDDP and their candidates. “Trainwreck”

  3. I wonder what people who donated to her “campaign” think about her spending that kind of money to get her hair done. I think you shouldn’t have mentioned the name of the salon as her hair is not a good advertisement for them, and they may be perfectly nice, non-socialist people.

    Did she donate some money to Planned Non-Parenthood? She believes in the sanctity of the “right” to murder unborn babies, so I figured if she wasted money on her ‘do, she’d donate to help kill the unborn as well.

  4. SDGOPer,

    I don’t think it is common but not unheard of for candidates to pay a salary while working full-time on a campaign. Personally, I make no judgment or conjecture by it unless it is excessive which hers is not.

    Here is what I don’t get. A lot of staff expenses, some office set up expenses, rent and consulting media expense. Very little travel expense or fundraiser expense (cash out or in-kind). Its like a manufacturing plant with office overhead but nothing happening in the plant making product.

    This is a campaign that is about 9 months from inception and its expense make-up looks like what you might see the first few months. Not this close to the election.

    1. Actually, Herseth had her campaign pay her when she was running. It’s not unheard of, but when you have no money as Hawks does, it’s probably a good indication of where things are going.

  5. I would like to announce that I am running for office in 2036. Please donate to my campaign so that I can pay my living expenses without having to work.

Comments are closed.