David Hogg‘s PAC Faces Scrutiny Over Spending and Endorsement Failures
Overview of Leaders We Deserve PAC
In a political landscape increasingly dominated by youth activism, David Hogg, a prominent left-wing activist and survivor of the Parkland school shooting, has made headlines with his political action committee (PAC), Leaders We Deserve. Initially pledging to invest up to $20 million in supporting younger, progressive Democratic candidates, the PAC’s financial activities have raised eyebrows. Recent reports indicate that a significant portion of its funds has been allocated to consultants and other operational expenses rather than directly supporting candidates in competitive races.
Financial Discrepancies
According to federal campaign finance filings, Leaders We Deserve has spent approximately $2.5 million on political consultants, $1.1 million on its own digital advertising, and nearly $1 million on building donor lists. In stark contrast, the PAC has only disbursed $455,000 to three candidates in challenging Democratic primary races, with only one candidate emerging victorious. This disparity has led to questions about the effectiveness and priorities of Hogg’s PAC.
The PAC’s most notable success came when it backed Zohran Mamdani with $300,000 in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary, a race that Mamdani won. However, other candidates supported by the PAC have not fared as well. Deja Foxx, a 25-year-old influencer dubbed “Arizona’s own AOC,” lost her Democratic special election primary by a staggering 39 percentage points after receiving $150,000 from the PAC. Similarly, Irene Shin, who received $5,000, was defeated by 45 percentage points in a special primary to fill the seat of the late Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia.
The PAC’s Financial Landscape
Despite Hogg’s ambitious claims, the PAC’s total intake had only reached $15.3 million by the end of June 2023, falling short of its projected fundraising goals. As of August, the PAC’s cash on hand increased from $925,904 to $1,616,892, but this still raises concerns about its ability to meet its initial promises.
Critics have pointed out that Hogg’s high operational expenditures are at odds with the PAC’s stated mission. New York state Senator James Skoufis, a former Democratic National Committee (DNC) member, mocked Hogg’s financial strategy, suggesting that he would need to raise over $3 billion to fulfill his $20 million pledge to primary candidates.
Justifications for Spending
Kevin Lata, co-founder and executive director of Leaders We Deserve, defended the PAC’s spending, asserting that their projections indicate that every dollar invested will yield a return of $3 to $5 by the end of the election cycle. He emphasized that the PAC aims to ensure that every donation is maximized for impact.
When questioned about the PAC’s expenditure on a fitness subscription service, ClassPass, Lata explained that it was provided as a wellness benefit for employees, a practice common among many employers. This justification, however, has not quelled the skepticism surrounding the PAC’s financial priorities.
Hogg’s Political Journey
David Hogg’s foray into politics has not been without controversy. During his brief tenure as a vice chair of the DNC, he expressed intentions to challenge “asleep at the wheel, out-of-touch, and ineffective” incumbent Democrats. This stance drew backlash from party leaders, ultimately leading to his ouster in June 2023. DNC Chairman Ken Martin emphasized the need for neutrality, stating, “We can’t be both the referee and also the player at the same time.”
Hogg’s approach has sparked a broader conversation about the role of youth in politics and the effectiveness of PACs in supporting progressive candidates. While many young activists are eager to challenge the status quo, the financial realities of political campaigning often complicate these ambitions.
Historical Context and Comparisons
The challenges faced by Hogg’s PAC are not unique. Historically, many political action committees have struggled to balance operational costs with direct candidate support. The rise of digital campaigning has led to increased spending on consultants and advertising, often at the expense of grassroots efforts. This trend raises questions about the sustainability of PACs that prioritize operational expenditures over direct candidate support.
In comparison, other successful PACs have managed to strike a balance between operational costs and candidate support. For instance, organizations like Emily’s List and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee have effectively mobilized resources to support candidates while maintaining a focus on their core missions.
Conclusion
As David Hogg’s Leaders We Deserve PAC navigates the complexities of political fundraising and candidate support, its financial decisions will likely continue to be scrutinized. The disparity between its spending on operational costs and direct candidate support raises important questions about the effectiveness of PACs in fostering a new generation of progressive leaders. As the political landscape evolves, the ability of organizations like Hogg’s to adapt and deliver on their promises will be crucial in shaping the future of the Democratic Party and its younger constituents.
