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

[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.

[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.

[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...

to fuck up the economy and our majority.

[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.

[GaYellowDawg]

52. Whataboutism at its very finest.

nm

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.