Archive

ShareThis Page
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s campaign didn’t need his money to raise $11M | TribLIVE.com
Politics/Election

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf’s campaign didn’t need his money to raise $11M

PennsylvaniaGovernorWolf45053jpg24d11
An Associated Press review of more than 30 sexual misconduct lawsuits included in a list provided by the Wolf administration found claims ranging from rape and other kinds of assault to sexual harassment and stalking.

Gov. Tom Wolf’s campaign says he had $11 million in his campaign account at the end of 2017, more than any other governor has raised in the year before seeking re-election, according to the Associated Press.

Wolf didn’t donate to his own campaign, as he did when he first ran for election in 2014, according to the report. His $10 million contribution at the time helped make the Pennsylvania governor’s race the second most-expensive that year according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

Wolf spent about $4.2 million more in 2014 than incumbent Republican Gov. Tom Corbett, who raised $36.9 million, according to the institute. Wolf was an owner of a kitchen cabinet design and distribution firm.

Now Wolf faces candidates in the Republican primary race with money of their own to spend.

The AP has reported Paul Mango, a former Pittsburgh health care consultant, had about $5.5 million on hand at the end of 2017 and was buying TV ads across the state.

State Sen. Scott Wagner, who owns trash-hauling businesses in York, is expected to throw money into his campaign, as is Laura Ellsworth, a Pittsburgh attorney with international law firm Jones Day.

Also in the race is House Speaker Mike Turzai of Marshall, who might be able to draw on fundraising networks.

The deadline for candidates to file fundraising reports for 2017 is Jan. 31.

Wes Venteicher is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-380-5676 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.