David Hogg is being paid a six figure salary by his PAC and may be using DNC emails to raise money for this PAC

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Hogg's pac raised $11.9 million and $10.7 million went to operating expenses including his salary

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

I got another email from David Hogg’s PAC (Leaders We Deserve). Decided to see what’s up. IDK, looks like homeboy is making a nice six figure salary:

Raised $11.9m
Spent $10.9m
Salaries: $608k (w 2/founders)
Consultants: $3m
Donations to House Candidates: $12.6k

Since Hogg's election to the DNC, I have been getting a good number of emails from Hogg and his pac. I am not the only one

Link to tweet

I had never received any emails from Hogg prior to his election to the DNC.
It is wrong for Hogg to use the DNC contact list to raise money to pay his salary and to challenge democratic incumbent candidates

[msongs]

1. he said he was gonna spend $20 mil but do not recall him providing the source of the money nt

[Meowmee]

38. I believe the source is his pac Leaders We Deserve

Which also pays him a large salary. Ultimately the source is less important than the fact that he is breaking a neutrality agreement, and trying to use his position to primary dems he doesn’t approve of. If he wants to do this, he should resign and do it on his own time.

David Hogg-run group announces $20M initiative to support primary challengers to House Democrats

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/david-hogg-run-group-announces-20m-initiative-support/story?id=120861846

[Nixie]

68. A large salary, indeed. It looks to be three times the salary

of a congressman. And that’s just to complain about Democrats. No wonder he’d rather grift than run for office.

[betsuni]

69. Like "If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire too" -- also complaining about Democrats!

Books, PACs, as long as you whip everyone up to hate Democrats and buy what you're selling!

[Nixie]

75. I just got a text $$$ solicitation from Hogg and that was the

messaging — complaining about Democrats. “They’re pissed at me.” Gawd forbid that his messaging would piss off Republicans instead.

I couldn’t block him fast enough. Not helpful, not interested.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

99. I have receive the same text and several Hogg emails

I find these emails and texts to be sad.

[Nixie]

112. Sad is a great word for it. He sounds so unprofessional and

absurd. Look what his generation has already lost and he doesn’t realize what’s been thrown away.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

113. His emails and texts remind me of the Justice Democrats emails and texts

The Justice Democrats and the Hogg emails are really sad because it is clear they do not like the existing Democratic Party and to remake the party with their clones/chosen candidates. I like the existing Democratic Party and see no need to remake the party just to make some people who have not worked inside the party happy

[Nixie]

122. Agreed with everything you say. It's been 10 years of this

and they have nothing to show for it except dragging our party down and it is sad to see.

[betsuni]

129. Waste of ten years fighting an imaginary enemy and wallowing in cynicism and negativity.

For what, not the good of the country. Very very sad.

[Meowmee]

70. I am not sure what the salary is for house and senate etc. it could be similar for some

According to one link I found. I found for dnc, all have pretty high salaries.

[Nixie]

76. I think Congressional reps salaries are right around $175,000/yr.

His current was close to $600,000 from what I could tell from the tweets about his organization that have been posted here.

It was way more than a congressman’s compensation, and a glaring double standard if he wants to put himself in a position to call others corrupt.

[Meowmee]

78. Where did you see 600k?

I first researched this a while back, and then checked again recently about the pac. It looks like he is getting 200k from the pac,

[Nixie]

79. It was in a string of tweets posted here. It also had a link to

his organization, which had some donors listed and some very whiny, unprofessional messaging. I think it was in a post from LetMyPeopleVote. I am curious to find it again to check that so I’ll look for it asap.

[Nixie]

80. lol, it's in this thread we're posting in -- in LetMyPeopleVote's

string of tweets in the OP. I’m on my phone which doesn’t show the thread authors, but I see it as I reopened this thread title.

It looks like the salaries are $608,000, but it says for “2 founders.” ?? That’s still way more than a congressman’s salary.

[Meowmee]

92. That is I think for more than dh, I read somewhere on financial info on the pac and

It looks like he is paid 200k for the salary from the pac which would make it equivalent to a cp salary. But I think it is a lot for a pac. I have read about salaries for various pacs/charities etc. but not recently, and I can't remember if this is atypical or not. For instance, one of the famous pet charities that advertises heart wrenching tv ads all the time was found to spend more money on ads and fundraising than on helping the cats/dogs etc.

[Nixie]

96. Thanks for this info.

[Lovie777]

2. Keep your eyes on the prize...........

[Sewa]

3. So what! Do you think he's the only one?

Hogg has the Institutionist Dems running scared. Good for him.

Btw what’s wrong with giving Democratic voters more choice. Ultimately it comes down to the voters to decide, if they are given a choice of candidates.

[brush]

6. I'll tell you what's wrong. Primarying sitting Dems with another Dem doesn't get us...

Last edited Fri Apr 25, 2025, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)

a majority in the House or Senate. What should be done is going after rethugs in purple districts, or in blue districts Biden won.

Getting the majority to be able to get bills to the floor and passed is WHAT'S IMPORTANT. Subbing one Dem for one Hogg prefers is get us nowhere.

It's not complicated.

Hogg is turning out to be a disappointment but he makes sure he feathers his own nest with nice. hefty salary.

Again, a disappointment.

[iemanja]

15. Refusing to do so gets the 2024 results

which many are committed to repeating ad infinitum.

[brush]

16. It's not that hard to understand. Subbing one Dem for annother gets us 2024 all over again.

Out of power.

Why don't you get that? We have to defeat republicans, not other Dems SO WE GET THE MAJORITY and then are able get control of bills to the floor and pass them. Also we stop rethugs from controlling the House and giving trump what he wants.

Not that complicated.

[iemanja]

17. Approval of Democrats is at an all-time low

That is what continues with the status quo. Why do you think keeping older Democrats in office when the public wants new blood is going to turn out better than 2024? You've given no reason as to why the status quo gets us anything better than 2024,

[brush]

18. Again, replacing Dems with other Dems does not gain the majority.

Defeat magat republicans, not Democrats. Not complicated. Getting the majority is the whole point.

[iemanja]

21. Is your point that it's a lost cause?

Any Democrat will lose so why bother? That's what it sounds like. Again, you haven't given a single reason why repeating the status quo will result in anything different from 2024. You also haven't explained how introducing some new Democrats won't help, other than new Democrats won't do any better than the existing ones. How about primarying the ones who don't stand up to fascism? Is that an anathema to you too? Are you suggesting elected Democrats deserve a seat for life? I recalled these arguments being used against AOC, despite the fact it was a safe Democratic seat. People just couldn't bear a change.

[Emile]

100. I wonder how they feel about primarying progressives with centrists.

[Keepthesoulalive]

28. New blood does not a competent leader make

I can name 2 younger senators Sinema who helped to destroy some of Bidens agenda and Fetterman who slobbers all over trump . New blood that is self serving only helps republicans. Wanting something new and shiny will not fix our problems. Only hard work and vetting the best candidate for the job no matter where they land on the age spectrum will fix our country.

[iemanja]

30. I think it's a case by case basis

While someone new isn’t of itself necessarily an improvement, if they take a seat from a Democrat who won’t stand up to fascism, it is. Elections are meant to be democratic. We do not have a House of Lords: the notion that elected representatives should serve for life uncontested is undemocratic. The claim that a primary is the same as voting for a Republican is false. Of course we will all vote for the Democrats in the GE.

Fascism is the single issue of our time. Resisting it is all that matters.

[sheshe2]

40. Older Democrats?

What age do you and David (25) consider old and in the way? What is the cut off, 40 50 60?

Why do you think keeping older Democrats in office when the public wants new blood

Here are a few. Do we get rid of them too?

Corey Booker 55
Elizabeth Warren 75
Bernie Sanders 83
Nancy Pelosi 85

[brush]

59. Oh sure, pushing out sitting Dems instead of funding races against vulnerable rethugs...

gets us closer to a majority in the House in '26 than whatever it is you're going on about.

This site is about electing Dems, not primarying sitting Dems.

Again, gaining the majoority to stop trump is the priority. There's nothing hard to understand about that.

[Nixie]

50. A huge disappointment. The messaging is what the GOP eats up

from what is politically called useful idiots.

Look at the California senate race with Katie Porter and Adam Schiff. She attacked a well-polling, dominant, popular Democrat for over a year with absolute nonsensical gibberish about corruption and all the other cool buzzwords they think they have to attack Democrats. It was not about giving voters a “choice.” It was about pushing a losing and failed narrative against our candidates. And they want DNC money for this…

[brush]

58. So true.

[betsuni]

81. And then said the election was rigged. Sigh. It's "GroundHogg Day" forever.

[sboatcar]

53. I disagree

The democrats in congress now aren't standing up to Trump they way they should be. They should all be up in arms instead of doing nothing. They aren't serving their constituents by doing that. We need some strong people running the show, not people who 'may' send a slightly strongly worded letter about things.
We need some fresh blood in congress that will actually fight for us. Those who refuse need to move on.

[brush]

57. Disagree all you want, but getting the majority is the priority or trump will continue...

Last edited Sun Apr 27, 2025, 02:13 AM - Edit history (1)

to fuck up the economy and our democracy.

[brush]

87. See post 86.

[Buzz cook]

85. I don't think that follows.

A democrat primary against a democrat in a blue district means a democrat wins.

What would risk the overall control of congress would be the DNC spending lots of money defending the established democrat in this case instead of spending those funds in close democrat vs republican districts.

[brush]

86. Again, not complicated. Why not use that money to fund Dem candidates.

Last edited Sun Apr 27, 2025, 04:46 AM - Edit history (1)

against REPUBLICAN candidates in purple districts or those in blue district who managed to win. If successful, it helps us get closer to taking back the majority in the House so we chair committees and control what bills get to the floor. Thqt should be the priority, not pushing out sitting Dems who have proven they can win.

Does that follow? See post 86 also.

[Buzz cook]

88. Bob Menendez was a proven winner.

Winning in a blue district is a low bar.

[brush]

90. So what, he was a crook. A Dem replaced him. Zing! Missed the point. Melendez was in the Senate.

Last edited Sun Apr 27, 2025, 04:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Gaining the House majority is the point so we Dems chair the committees and what bills get to the floor. Also we get the Speakership away from that invertebrate Johnson who is just a sop for trump.

And btw, the New Jersey governor, a Democrat, replaced Melendez with a Democrat.

[Buzz cook]

108. A democrat replaced a democrat.

We hope in this case a better democrat. The same is true when we primary any democrat.

[brush]

109. One thing you missed. Primarying sitting Democrats who've proven they can win...

with someone a 25-year-old, unproven DNC vice-chair thinks may beat a republican is another thing all together.

That point is worth repeating again...primarying a proven, sitting Democrat with someone who might beat a republican is chancy when trump and the republicans are trying to install fascism to replace our democracy.

Call me crazy but IMO gaining back the House majority to help thwart trump and fascism is more important than following an unproven DNC vice-chair and his PAC money to unseat sitting Dems...and BTW, that vice-chair pays himself a hefty, six-figure salary with that PAC money on top of his DNC salary, and expenses of the PAC far outnumbers the money it spends on it's unproven candidates.

Seems the unproven DNC vice-chair should resign from the DNC immediately and follow his dream instead of uning the DNC's name and resources to replace sitting Dems with someone who might win against republicans.

I think I'd pass on that and concentrate on gaining the House majorty to thwart trump and looming fascism.

[ILikePie92]

9. Agreed

100%

[W_HAMILTON]

34. (1) If others are doing the same, point them out.

(2) People like David Hogg have been critical in the past of even mere ALLEGATIONS of the same sort of biased influence he is now himself trying to exert as a DNC leader. It's insanely hypocritical.

(3) Who the hell is David Hogg to foist a candidate upon voters? There is nothing precluding anyone from running in Democratic primaries -- hell, given some of our recent ones, you don't even need to be a Democrat... *cough cough*

Just because David Hogg doesn't approve of the job that someone is doing doesn't mean their ACTUAL CONSTITUENTS think the same. And -- as we've seen with Sinema and now it looks like Fetterman is next -- when someone's constituents turn on them, the voters know how to get rid of them. They don't need a random 20-something-year-old telling them who they should vote for instead.

[Cha]

43. Excellent Points.. TY, W HAMILTON!

[Mountainguy]

35. What the fuck is wrong with

"Institutionist Dems"

[sheshe2]

42. What is your definition of an "Institutionist Democrat"?

Thank you in advance.

[betsuni]

54. Same as Establishment but being "anti-institutionist" isn't really a thing and doesn't have the groovy '60s

vibe that "anti-establishment" has. I don't think "Institutionist Dems" is going to happen.

Also too, Cenk and his '60s band-PAC The Super-Populist Rebellions aren't pretending to be democratic socialists anymore. They finally gave up on making that happen (now that nobody running for president has to pretend FDR/LBJ were democratic socialists so the only true Democrat must be a socialist, too). Now they're admitting to being capitalists by calling themselves progressive capitalists.

[rich7862]

51. Primary out those that vote with trump, or who are silent in this fight for our democracy. Bravo.

[sheshe2]

77. Please list all the Democrats that are voting with trump.

I'll wait.

[betsuni]

82. If one Democrat has a nightmare wherein they vote with Trump and wake up screaming...

Good enough evidence to replace the whole party.

[sheshe2]

114. Weird...I never got that list I politely asked for.🤔

What a nightmare.

[betsuni]

120. The dog ate the list.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

98. I want to see this list also

Please show us this list

[sheshe2]

115. Still waiting.🤔

[GaYellowDawg]

52. Whataboutism at its very finest.

nm

[krawhitham]

72. A self created PAC where they only spend 2.2% of donations on candidates, but others do it too so its OK?

A PAC that raised $11.9 million last election cycle, while only spending $266,000 on candidates while paying each "founder" a salary of $304,000

The man's salary was more than they distributed to candidates, but you're OK with it because "he's (not) the only one"? That really says more about you than anything else.

But since you are sure he's not the only one, please name another Super PAC where they only distributed 2.2% to candidates while paying each "founder" more they distributed to all candidates

[brush]

84. Apparently you don't know the DNC is about nuetrality and raising money for all Dems...

Last edited Sun Apr 27, 2025, 02:57 AM - Edit history (1)

running for office around the country. Helping Dem candidates set up offices, get literature printed, hire staff, compiled email lists, web sites social media...the things candidates need.

Again, DNC staffers, ESPECIALLY THE VICE-CHAIR, are supposed to remain neutral, work to help all the candidates...progressives, center-left, moderates etc. Not favor ones he prefers and use Dem email lists to help his preferred candidates.

If he wants to help his preferred candidates with his PAC money, he should resign from the DNC immediately and do that. And btw, use the PAC money for candidates and not expenses and his big salary.

Do you understand?

[Sewa]

110. lol, how did the DNC work in 2016

DNC Chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz Stepping Aside in Wake of Scandal

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-conventions/democratic-national-committee-chief-stepping-aside-after-convention-n615826

Do you understand? 😂🤣😜

[brush]

111. LOL yourself. Seems you're one of those who think trump won that election legitimately.

Last edited Sun Apr 27, 2025, 06:04 PM - Edit history (1)

I noticed you didn't mention the jobs the DNC did for Obama in '08 and '12, and two Clinton victories in the '90s.

Some of us aren't so gullible.

But carry one.

[Oopsie Daisy]

4. At $27 a-pop... fundraising can be very profitable.

Maybe he's found his calling.

[sheshe2]

41. "I am once again asking you"...

[Oopsie Daisy]

45. 🤣😂👍️ Exactly!

I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that it's easier for a politician to regularly and repeatedly return to the money-well if they promise to "split" the donation with some other group, cause or candidate. I guess that way, it kinda sounds altruistic. Maybe it has a psychological effect by making them appear to be less greedy since they're only keeping half for themselves. Apparently this is an effective and efficient way to encourage the donor is to loosen their purse strings, yet again. (Nice work if you can get it.)

[ILikePie92]

5. Looks like

...the knives are out for David. Guess that's what happens when you piss off those in power.

I'm sure there's a whole group of people looking for dirt on him now.

Same old circular DNC firing squad.

We're only hurting ourselves doing this.

I heard him out during several interviews on TV. His plan doesn't sound that crazy to me.

[ILikePie92]

7. Oh

Isn't there a rule on here against disparaging fellow Dems?

[brush]

10. See post #6.

[Nixie]

95. No. It looks like David's knives are out and people are wondering,

Again with this shit?

And people are wondering what would be wrong with pissing off Republicans instead.

[sheshe2]

116. I read that post...scrolled down to respond...

and saw that you already posted exactly what I was going to say.

Hey, Nixie

[Nixie]

121. Hi she! Thanks for that. Always good to see you. ❤️

Your posts always mirror my exact thoughts, too. It’s just a very palpable misinformation campaign that we recognize, it seems. So unnecessary. Sigh.

Nice to see you!

[betsuni]

97. David is in power, a leadership position, the establishment.

[ILikePie92]

102. Obviously

But there are multitudes of people in higher positions than David.

[betsuni]

103. And?

[ILikePie92]

105. Or?

[sheshe2]

117. Oh snap!

[betsuni]

118. Has to hold his own feet to the fire, fight the power of himself, speak truth to himself, when he's

anti-establishment he's anti-himself. Complicated! And no more using elite as an insult for Democrats because if he's not elite... Young, powerful, wealthy -- use it to fight the real enemy, Republicans!

[delisen]

8. Troubling nt

[betsuni]

11. Just put "the people" or "grassroots" in front of money and it's pure while everyone else's is a bribe from Satan.

Insist that it's just little tiny itty bitty $27 donations (still pure even if the legal limit is reached by donating numerous times, but if a Democrat receives the legal limit all at once it's an immoral corrupting bribe from Satan).

If he's using a DNC contact list, doesn't it have Establishment cooties?

[betsuni]

13. No it's not. Obama received a record amount of money from Wall Street. Did he refuse to sign

laws regulating Wall Street. No. They gave their money to Mitt Romney next election, why Michael Moore predicted Mitt would win, because he had more money. So what? You just fundraise elsewhere. Money doesn't guarantee winning, it can't force anyone to vote a certain way.

Campaign finance reform is a Democratic issue and all candidates ran on it.

What Democrats changed policy because of campaign contributions? Who?

Democrats don't listen because of lobster and champagne.

[iemanja]

14. Is this the supposed reason he wants Democrats to stand up to fascism

and actually win elections?

[Keepthesoulalive]

29. Al Green stood up

He’s in his 70’s should we primary him, he also brings in money to help his district. Let’s try and run a clear headed campaign to get rid of trump , not some knee jerk magic potion. Young does not mean good old does not mean bad.
We need competent leadership and don’t give a fig about age.

[iemanja]

31. Obviously the point isn't to primary everyone.

Which you well know.

[Keepthesoulalive]

37. No I don't

This discussion about new blood only seems to discriminate because of age and time in congress.
I would appreciate who he feels should be primaried ,list please or is it left up to him to decide who our candidates should be.

[mcar]

19. Another grifter

Disappointing.

[Deuxcents]

26. There was a video on here yesterday with Brian Tyler Cohen and David Hogg..A good question n answer

Interview that I wish I knew how to pull up. Texas Towelie posted it but it’s on YouTube, too. If you watch it, I don’t believe you will walk away with the same opinion you’ve just posted here.

[mcar]

60. His PAC raised $11.9 million. $10.7 million went to "administrative expenses"

only $266,000 was spent on campaigns.

That is grift, pure and simple.

[ananda]

20. I just get texts, not so much emails.

I haven't donated a red cent to anyone since the election.

I'm hunkering down now and trying to save money.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

22. Lot of people here sure hate David.

Good thing is that he's used to dealing with that.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

32. He seems to be good at dividing Dems

[Celerity]

46. He is not the one dividing Democrats.

[lapucelle]

73. Actually Hogg is the one dividing Democrats.

The DNC neutrality policy is a direct result of the "rigged system" bullshit that Trump and his acolytes promulgated during the 2016 general election campaign. The DNC began putting the reforms in place in 2018.

The DNC remains neutral during primaries, and leadership endorses incumbents, all with the purpose of retaining seats and growing the caucuses. That's how it works, and Hogg knew it when he lobbied for and accepted his position in DNC leadership.

[Mysterian]

106. There's no way around it

The numbers on that organization are pure grift. Deal with it in your special way.

[MagickMuffin]

23. I'm confused these tax forms are from 2024

Have we traveled back in time.

We should be working together on how to advance our election strategy. I think David Hogg should focus on unchallenged seats. Get younger people to run against republicans that don’t have a democratic opponent.

As far as the pac goes and using the dnc’s email list I believe is wrong, and he should be penalized for that, whatever that is.

I’d hate to see the Democratic Party run him off when he could and can be a valuable asset to the party.

[MichMan]

48. Isn't 2024 the most recent tax year?

I know it has only been 10 days since I filed.

[MagickMuffin]

63. The post said last month, last time I checked that would be Mar 2025

That’s what confused me. They should show proof of the $$$ for this year since that’s what they stated.

[MichMan]

66. That post you are referring to is dated June 18 2024.

When it was originally posted it was last month (May 2024)

[flvegan]

24. What does the DNC Chair position pay again? Genuinely curious.

[LudwigPastorius]

25. Waiting for the pivot of his PAC's mission statement, from getting a variety of young Democrats into office, to...

getting David Hogg into office.

He's stated that he will run for Congress when he turns 25. I just don't know what seat he's going to try for.

[MichMan]

27. If I knew that over 95% of donations to a PAC went to staff & overhead, and less than 5% was used for the stated purpose

I sure as hell wouldn't give them a penny and would find a better use for it like my local animal rescue group.

Good luck raising the $20 million he is proposing

[fujiyamasan]

39. it's quite a grift, to put it charitably

And we all know if we saw a figure less sympathetic than Hogg doing this, that’s the word that would be used to describe this.

Another word to describe would be scam. Perhaps that’s harsh, so I’ll stick with grift.

[valleyrogue]

33. Donald Segretti had a term for people who set out to undermine Democrats. n/t

[Meowmee]

36. Yes I learned of his salary from the pac about 2 weeks ago

Does anyone know what he is being paid by DNC? I know for sure that I and a friend both received emails from him last week asking for money. And neither of us ever signed up for the emails for that pac so they had to come from a DNC mailing list.

[MichMan]

47. Did you contribute to his PAC after receiving his passionate plea?

His PAC is named appropriately

[Meowmee]

64. LOL no I deleted the emails and replied to one saying please remove me etc., and unsubbed etc.

Yes I was thinking that about the name too. 😹

[William769]

44. He's learned quick how to make money in politics.

In with the new? Yea right.

[JustAnotherGen]

49. Who is funding the PAC?

That's a critical question.
Also - that's unethical.

[JohnSJ]

55. You are right, that is very important.

[Jose Garcia]

61. I guess that the technical term is 'suckers'

That's a pretty high overhead.

[claudette]

56. This kid

is really getting on my nerves. I'm glad he survived the school shooting, but for gawd's sake - get OUT of Dem politics now!

[mike_c]

62. there are lots of jobs that require you...

...to raise funds for your salary. That is not uncommon.

[W_HAMILTON]

65. It's pretty common among grifters.

If you are incapable of raising much money to begin with, what are you paying yourself an exorbitant salary? A salary to do what exactly?

[Raine]

67. Another greedy grifter. 😡 🤬nt

[JustAnotherGen]

71. Kick

For visibility

[LetMyPeopleVote]

74. 2.2% of the money raised by Hogg's PAC went to candidates (that is not a good return)

Link to tweet

[Buzz cook]

83. How does a 200k salary compre to other PACs?

It doesn't seem out of line to me. But then I'm not very knowledgeable about what PACs pay their executives.

Here's what the FEC has to say about Leaders We Deserve PAC.
https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00843110/
Most of the disbursements go to "Middle Seat", What's that? Is it unusual to have different entities within a PAC?
I'm used to seeing people get slimed by having things pointed out about them that are innocent but not immediately explainable.
It has a characteristic rush to judgement by some that tend to believe ill of the person or group involved before hand and that can snowball to even those that would ordinarily withhold judgement.

Al Franken deserved a chance to answer his accusers.

[MichMan]

94. The issue is that only 2% of the funds donated to the PAC actually go to those it claims to be supporting

"Leaders We Deserve"

People donate their hard earned money to causes with the idea that their contributions are used to further the mission of the organization. When they find out otherwise, they feel like they are being taken for suckers and are much less likely to make any more donations to that organization, or any others for that matter.

Considering Hogg's position at the DNC, it wouldn't be a reach for potential donors to question if the same thing might occur to contributions made there.

[Buzz cook]

107. Still doesn't tell me what Back Seat is.

It's just partial information.

And look at the last section of the OP. That's classic trolling.
"I had never received any emails from Hogg prior to his election to the DNC.
It is wrong for Hogg to use the DNC contact list to raise money to pay his salary and to challenge democratic incumbent candidates "
There are many many ways your email could get on a mailing list; to assume it was gotten by nefarious means is a big stretch.

[Ilikepurple]

89. Hogg mad you mad enough to go to the dark side of Twitter to do your research?

David sure has riled up some on this board. Right into being MAGA adjacent. I know OP has Democratic ideals in mind, but I do find it interesting how we will reach anywhere for confirmation of our biases. He hasn’t even primaried anyone yet. The mere threat might have had a chance to influence incumbents to rethink their positions and reactions, but I’m guessing that’s what some dems are most afraid of. I wish I knew more about the structure of Hogg’s PAC’s expenditures. It does seem suspect, but not as suspect as the cited twitter accounts.
I’m guessing it’s just a lot easier to find evidence agains Hogg under right wing Twitter accounts and other media?
Rob Romano: @2Aupdates? Lots of gun lovin posts
Bulldog : “For as long as I live I can’t understand how anyone regardless of sex could vote Democrat.”
Tim Sharp: “Democrats cheering on criminal activity. Completely on brand.”
Paul A. Szypula: “Illegal from El Salvador refuses to comply with ICE and get out of the car.
ICE proceeds to break the car window, then remove, handcuff, and arrest the illegal for deportation.
Thank you
@ICEgov for dealing with these illegals.
I voted for this. Proudly.”

[fujiyamasan]

91. Unfortunately I've seen this before with not for profits

And I think politics is especially ripe for this sort of grift. I don’t think people on the left are any less susceptible to the lure of easy money.

It’s always easy to convince yourself that donors are funding you for your exceptional talent or experience. That’s rarely the case, and the targets are very opaque so it’s easy to string wealthy donors along. Hey, they may even get a tax deduction!

Any organization paying this much in “overhead” is likely to collapse. There’s no ROI here for anyone. The party seems to be taken over by “consultants” spanning the ideological spectrum. Who is funding this? Who are the consultants? Are they Hogg’s Harvard buddies? As a candidate for mayor for New York City once asked, “why is the rent so damn high?”

[DFW]

93. These people have to know that some of the numbers will be made public, and they need to have answers ready

If their PAC has distributed $600K in salary, $3 Million expenses, and only $12,600 in candidate contributions, if they don't have rational explanations ready, they are not helping their cause. If they raised $12 million, disbursed 2% of that to the causes they claim to be helping, and over 90% on expenses (a good bit of which will be their own salaries and travel expenses), they had better have solid reasons to back these numbers. The concept of "out with the old, in with the new," even by their own definition was supposed to refer to the makeup of the Democratic caucus in the House, not the names of occupants of hotel suites.

About 20 years ago, Bill Clinton was talking to some people about the costs involved in some aid programs, citing that expenses ate up about 25% of the budget while he was in office, and about 4% now that he was overseeing similar programs as a charity. One of his small audience asked why the expenses were so much higher when they were being directed by the government, and he answered without hesitation, "because we were stupid, that's why!"

[Duncanpup]

101. David Hogg needs replaced.

[ILikePie92]

104. Disagree

We need 100 more Hoggs

[Keepthesoulalive]

126. No we don't

He is a young man who has been through a lot but that does not make him a savior of democracy.
Judge him by his works not his words.

[ILikePie92]

130. I disagree

I have judged him by his acts. Listen to what he's actually saying, it's not that outlandish and is probably already being done anyways as normal OP in the DNC.

[Keepthesoulalive]

132. How many young people is he registering to vote

Go onto college campuses and talk to young folks about civics and responsibility as citizens ‘so we can make changes. Grassroots not attempting to primary sitting congress people. Who is he going to primary and what metric will he use? We have enough kingmakers (Carville). We need grass roots organizers. Groups like Indivisible, act blue and local Democratic clubs are doing ground work, I don’t see or hear of him doing the grunt work.

[ILikePie92]

134. Just because

....you're not aware of it doesn't mean anything. I'm pretty sure that incumbents are challenged in most every election, so nothing new there. Go look for what he's actually proposing to do. Only challenge incumbents in safe dem districts, who don't really do anything. Small amounts of bills proposed or sponsored, little to no action elsewhere, dems who tend to vote for GOP bills, etc....
Nothing to be surprised about.

[Jack Valentino]

119. "including his salary"--- so exactly how much was his salary?

so far, this is just click-baity accusations without specifics, by inference...


I happen to agree with him that some "old Democrats" need to go---
particularly those who helped push President Biden out of the 2024 race....

elections have consequences, and all that.


And all this brand new DNC initiative that DNC members need to "stay out of Democratic primaries"---
would have been nice back in 2016, when I was supporting Bernie Sanders.

"nuff said"

[LetMyPeopleVote]

123. The real beneficiary of this fight between David Hogg and the @DNC is the Republicans

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

124. Lies about Democrats being corrupt, rigging, bribed, doing nothing, not progressive, both sides only helps Republicans.

Primarying candidates will attack the incumbent with all of this and more, character attacks, threats, and whining about Democrats out to get them. Why not run on plans, policies, hopes for the future? But no, dark side it is. A smorgasbord of hate all laid out and steaming hot for Republicans to pick and choose from.

[brush]

128. looks like David Hogg is making out too, he gets DNC pay too.

[Torchlight]

125. It's always disheartening to watch

someone who championed change instead fold into the very system they vowed to disrupt. What felt like a rallying cry for something better turns out to be just another play for I/Me/Mine. It’s a reminder to me that real change is rare — and that ideals can be far more fragile than ambition.

[brush]

127. On top of his DNC salary? Looks like vice-chair Hogg is cleaning up and using DNC's name and resources at the same time.

WTF?

[Nanjeanne]

131. I'm confused - where are people seeing David Hogg's actual salary. Because all I can see in this tweet is some

conjecture regarding salaries as posted in Open Secrets. $608,000 or 6.8% going to salaries/wages/benefits doesn't seem outlandish to me for the running of a PAC that I am sure employs many more workers than the 2 founders. Seems like a lot of making assumptions and reactions to no actual information to feed a bias some people have. What is laid out in Open Secrets is easy to understand. What is hard for me to understand is this reaction to something that has - as far as I can see - no basis in fact. So please, point me to the actual information that I should be looking at so I can make a determination for myself. Thanks.

https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/leaders-we-deserve/C00843110/expenditures/2024]

[LetMyPeopleVote]

133. Who needs David Hogg when we have the Justice Democrats primarying good Democrats?

I got an email from the Justice Democrats announcing that they are primarying a regular democrat. This is from the email:

The day has come: Today, Justice Democrats is officially announcing our first 2026 primary challenger of the cycle: State Representative XXXXX for the YYYYY

XXXX just launched his grassroots campaign against a self-funded multimillionaire incumbent, and we need to show he’s got people power behind him in these crucial first 24 hours.

Will you become a Day 1 founding donor by pitching in any amount now? 100% of your donation will go directly to supporting XXXX’s campaign.

This is Justice Democrats’ first new primary candidate in a few years, and it’s a race that embodies our fight to transform the future of the Democratic Party

I have been following the Justice Democrats and its predecessor for a while including the "brand new congress group" and other groups created by Cenk, Kyle Kulinksi, Zack Exley, Saikat Chakrabarti, and their ilk. I am on the Justice Democrat email list and I have even listened once or twice to the Justice Democrat podcast which is amusingly called "Just Us" democrats. The Justice Democrats emails are fun to laugh at and I love the hatred this group shows to the Democratic Party, establishment Democrats and best of all corporate democrats (I am a corporate lawyer).

The Justice Democrat group want to take over the Democratic party and remake into their image. I also do not want the Democratic Party to be taken over by the Justice Democrat group.


I am not the only person who has issues with the concept that the Justice Democrats want to take over the Democratic Party

Link to tweet

Again, the above posts are consistent with the hatred of the Democratic Party that I see on the almost daily emails that I get from the Justice Democrats. I admit that I enjoy the Just Us Democrat whines about AIPAC and Jews being mean.

The Just Us Democrats seem to be drawing a distinction between their group and David Hogg's pac with respect to how much money will go to the candidate. Hogg's pac gave only 2.3% of the amount raised last cycle to candidates.

A fight between the Justice Democrat group and Hogg's pac will be fun to watch