Subject: RE: Hi Graham / Politico
From: "Wilson, Graham M. (Perkins Coie)" <[email-masked]>
To: "Dacey, Amy" <[email-masked]>, "Paustenbach, Mark" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Miranda, Luis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 19:41:38 +0000

Okay -

I also put some thoughts on the questions below in red. Obviously, you should play with the specific language you'd like to use if you want to go back to him with more. I think the point that there is a lot of HVF money allocated to states that hasn't been sent to them yet  because it is for general election purposes is a good one, and the reason that they're sending money to us so far is because we are building the infrastructure that is necessary to support the programs that they will be running later.

Of course, if you want to go back to him with more of the below, may want to coordinated/check with HFA to make sure we're on the same page and saying the same things.

Thanks,

Graham

Graham M. Wilson | Perkins Coie LLP
Direct. +1.202.434.1638

From: Dacey, Amy [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2016 3:38 PM
To: Paustenbach, Mark
Cc: Miranda, Luis; Wilson, Graham M. (Perkins Coie)
Subject: Re: Hi Graham / Politico

Thank you

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 30, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Paustenbach, Mark <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Ken is closing his story this afternoon, so I got him our previous quote on the JFAs. Also, background about all that we are doing and have done to support the states, especially the points Amy made. Will keep folks posted.

Mark Paustenbach
National Press Secretary &
Deputy Communications Director
Democratic National Committee
202.863.8148
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

On Apr 30, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Miranda, Luis <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Absolutely, we'll reinforce it.

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S(r)4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: "Dacey, Amy" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: 04/30/2016 12:01 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Graham Wilson <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: "Paustenbach, Mark" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "Miranda, Luis" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: Hi Graham / Politico
Guys I really want to be aggressive on this jfa raised $ to support general election efforts money is moving to states as we build up coordinated campaign structures
We just have to make sure we aren't letting any narrative that not supporting states efforts
And really need to push our work here!

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 29, 2016, at 7:31 PM, Wilson, Graham M. (Perkins Coie) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Okay. I will connect with him as well.

Graham M. Wilson
(202) 679-3482

On Apr 29, 2016, at 6:22 PM, "Paustenbach, Mark" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Spoke to Clinton campaign.

They agreed that we should highlight all the ways the state parties benefit from DNC infrastructure improvements.

They are checking with Elias on some of the other questions.

Mark Paustenbach
National Press Secretary &
Deputy Communications Director
Democratic National Committee
202.863.8148
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

On Apr 29, 2016, at 7:04 PM, Wilson, Graham M. (Perkins Coie) <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Great. Will take a look and get back to you with some thoughts tomorrow.

Are we coordinating with HFA on these as well? I think it would be helpful to know what they are going to say.

Also, let's reach out to Amalgamated and make sure they don't say something dumb. Do you have a contact there or would you like me to reach out to Sam Brown who I know?

From: Paustenbach, Mark [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 5:58 PM
To: Wilson, Graham M. (Perkins Coie)
Cc: Miranda, Luis; Dacey, Amy
Subject: Hi Graham / Politico

Hi Graham,

Ken Vogel at Politico is doing a follow up story on the Hillary Victory Fund and wants us to get back to him by Sunday. Bolded and underlined below are his questions. I've inserted draft answers to some but have left others blank. Appreciate in advance your feedback.

Best,
Mark

______________________________________________________________

We're finally revisiting this subject, and I was hoping you could give me an on-the-record statement about why this is a good deal for state parties and help me answer the following specific questions (I'm also emailing the questions to the Clinton campaign and, in the case of #6, Amalgamated Bank):

1.)    Of the $3.8 million that HVF has transferred to the state parties through 3/31/16, $3.3 million has been transferred almost immediately to the DNC. That means that through 3/31 the state parties have kept $500k - or less than 1 percent - of the $61 million raised by the HVF. Why so little?

*         All of the money that is being raised into HVF for the Democratic party is to help the DNC and the state democratic parties prepare to elect Democrats up and down the ticket in the general election.  The money that has been transferred to the DNC, both directly from HUFF, and from state parties, has been used at the DNC to build the critical infrastructure to support state parties. [EXAMPLES FROM TALKING POINTS BELOW]

*         Because the money that HUFF is raising for the party is to help Democrats win the general election, HUFF has raised significant funds for the state parties that has not yet been transferred. Nearly 10 million dollars has already been raised, in addition to the 3.3 that was previously transferred, that are allocable to state parties that have not yet been disbursed to them. At this point in the cycle, the best way for the party to prepare is for the DNC to build the infrastructure that will help all state parties and candidates up and down the ticket. Later in the election cycle, when field programs are in full swing, obviously more funds will be spent directly by the state parties, including funds raised through HUFF.

2.) Based on these numbers, are Hillary Clinton and her allies overstating their support for state parties?

1+2: (on background/please paraphrase) The money from the JFAs is used for critical investments in infrastructure, maintaining the DNC's national voter file, and bolstering our research, communications and digital capabilities, all of which will help elect Democrats up and down the ballot in November and help strengthen state parties across the country. You can find some of our efforts in the overview of our Democratic Victory Task Force report<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.democrats.org_Post_dnc-2Dunveils-2D2016-2Ddemocratic-2Dvictory-2Dtask-2Dforce-2Dreport-2Dand-2Daction-2Dplan&d=CwMFAg&c=XRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0&r=ztfeb3sYMwYJc4m6DQzcZ1EDxKmQmE8pe5TrXm4gdCU&m=dVU2_6qyyDHwqjEhlA5O2Iaa6HRPP-1vXY_n7IFKpw0&s=Ojfy8yXJ2u9ixkqJGSwqpfrQM11AKlgtZk2TlozDpNg&e=> that came out in November 2015.

*         No - see above.
3.) Will the HVF allow them to keep more of the overall cash raised going forward?

(off the record) For these questions re strategic considerations, I would direct you to the Clinton campaign. Again, the JFAs help strengthen state parties across the country.

*         You should confirm with the Clinton campaign to make sure they are comfortable with it, but I think that it would make sense here to say confirm that, generally speaking, yes, as we approach the general election and the state parties build out their on the ground field programs, their budgets will go up, and HVF is raising money to support those programs.
4.) We understand that the DNC has provided the state parties with talking points on how to respond to media inquiries about the joint fundraising committee. Why is that?

5.) Some state party sources have expressed concern that the arrangement could actually hurt participating state parties by keeping them from accepting cash from donors whose checks to the HVF counted towards their $10,000 limit to participating state parties that never got to spend the cash because it was transferred to the DNC. Does that concern you?

(possible off-the-record answer) At this giving level, these are sophisticated donors; they know what they are doing.  If they don't want to give to a state party through HVF and would rather give direct they certainly can.  They are allowed under the JFA agreement to omit any state they want to.  Most state parties do not have access to the level of donors who are writing huge checks.

*         I think the points you make are good.  Any donor is allowed to allocate their contribution however they want, and can always choose to give to state parties directly. Also, donations are first allocated to the HFA primary election limit and the DNC's general account, so it is only after donors have given 36,100 that funds start to go to the state parties, and at that point, their contributions are divided evenly among 32 state parties. Accordingly, there are VERY few donors who make contributions so large that they max out to state parties. Almost every donor who gives to HVF will still be able to also give to other state party programs directly under their contribution limits.
6.) Sources also tell us that some participating state parties didn't even know the money had been transferred into and out of their accounts until after the fact, despite the fact that some of those parties had actually stipulated in the banking documents that their affirmative consent was required before such transfers could be made from their accounts (using the space on the signature card that asks for "Number of signatures required for withdrawal"). Have any state parties complained to you or the HVF about this and have you taken steps to make sure that they're kept apprised in real time of transfers?

*         Unless we have actually received complaints, can we say something like the following: We have not received any complaints from state parties about the structure of HVF. Parties of course chose to sign up voluntarily, and we understand that they are very appreciative of the fundraising support to help the party build the program we need to win up and down the ticket in the general election.
7.) Among the online ads paid for by the HVF, many urge readers to "Stop Trump" or to support Clinton. Are those electioneering?

 The online ads that are paid for by HVF are all to help raise funds for HVF. Of course, in order to raise funds to help win elections, the ads talk about the election and who is running. Donors understand the critical need to support the party and make sure that we have the resources we need to defeat the party of Trump in the general. As the Hillary Victory Fund raises contributions for HFA in addition to the party, the ads appropriately reference Secretary Clinton as well, and we have always been happy to create the same joint fundraising opportunities with all of our great candidates.

________________________________

NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.