Subject: Hillary Clinton fundraising off to slow start - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO
From: "Eric Schwerin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hunter Biden" <[email-masked]>, "Alexander S. Mackler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:36:09 -0500

Hillary Clinton fundraising off to slow start - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/hillary-clinton-priorities-usa-action-115084.html

Hillary Clinton fundraising off to slow start

The main super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton is struggling in its early
efforts to line up cash towards a fundraising goal of as much as $500
million, according to sources with knowledge of its fundraising.

The group, Priorities USA Action, is trying to secure 30 or more pledges of
at least $1 million apiece to be unveiled publicly when the former
Secretary of State officially enters the race, sources say. But so far it
has received only about ten firm commitments, and it is encountering
resistance from top donors who have given to other Clinton-linked vehicles,
including ostensibly aligned super PACs
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/hillary-clinton-2016-shadow-campaign-101762.html>
and even the apolitical Clinton Foundation.

Story Continued Below

Discussions have focused on trying to super-charge the sluggish fundraising
by enlisting help from heavyweight surrogates with close ties to the
Clintons including possibly Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80895.html> or investment banker Tom
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-to-give-top-campaign-role-to-husband-of-cnn-vp/>
Nides
<http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-to-give-top-campaign-role-to-husband-of-cnn-vp/>,
who served under Hillary Clinton at the State Department, according to
sources.

Priorities, which has worked to reinvent itself
<http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/jim-messina-john-podesta-priorities-usa-99849.html>
after helping President Barack Obama win reelection in 2012, has been
buffeted by disagreements over its mission
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/priorities-were-not-sitting-out-2014-103847.html>,
as well as its fundraising strategy and goals, according to interviews with
about a dozen Democratic donors and operatives working to lay the
groundwork for an expected Clinton campaign.

Priorities occasionally has clashed behind the scenes with other groups
working towards the same goal. The tensions spilled out into public view
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/david-brock-resigns-priorities-usa-action-115028.html>
Monday, when Clinton ally David Brock quit the Priorities board amidst
accusations it was trying to boost its own fundraising by undercutting that
of two pro-Clinton groups he runs.

While Brock said late Monday he was “open to returning” after Priorities
pledged to address his concerns, it’s Priorities itself that some
Clintonites are concerned about.

“People are starting to worry that Priorities could be a weak link,” said a
strategist who has worked with the various pro-Clinton outside groups.

The stumbles – and the slow fundraising start – raise doubts about a key
assumption about Clinton’s strength as a presidential candidate: that her
allies will be able to rely on a seemingly bottomless well of support from
rich supporters to build an historic political money juggernaut that will
overwhelm prospective rivals.

Over the last two years, the two super PACs that have been most active
paving the way for an expected Clinton campaign – Brock’s American Bridge 21
st Century and Ready for Hillary – raised a combined $29 million, according
to Federal Election Commission filings.

And the Clinton Foundation this week said it had raised all but $2 million
of an aggressive $250 million fundraising drive for an endowment it had
hoped to complete before any campaign kickoff, at which point the Clintons
themselves likely would have to withdraw from foundation activities.

Meanwhile, Priorities, which was created in 2011
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53905.html> to help boost
Obama’s reelection, has been mostly idling since it spent $75 million
during the 2012 campaign. It raised only $364,000 in the last two years,
and finished 2014 with less than $500,000 in the bank, according to FEC
filings.

Peter Kauffmann, a spokesman for Priorities, said “we are confident that we
will have the resources necessary to execute our mission.”

But there’s also debate about how much exactly the PAC will need to provide
effective advertising cover for Clinton’s would-be campaign during an
election cycle in which the network overseen by the conservative
billionaire Koch brothers intends to spend at least $889 million
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-2016-spending-goal-114604.html>.

Some Clinton allies argue that Priorities must raise as much as $500
million — a major increase from the $300-million goal floated by insiders
<http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/clinton-shadow-campaign-gets-ready-for-the-real-thing>
late last year — while others privately worry that figure is out of reach
even for the Clintons. For perspective, the super PAC supporting Republican
Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign raised $154 million
<https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00490045&cycle=2012>,
while the Karl Rove-conceived Crossroads advertising groups spent $325
million
<http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/karl-rove-and-the-modern-money-machine-108019.html>
during that cycle.

Priorities is hampered by the absence of a Clinton campaign organization,
say people familiar with its early efforts. They expect fundraising to
spike once Clinton declares her candidacy, but that might not come until
July
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/exclusive-hillary-clinton-may-delay-campaign-114714.html>,
which is one reason Priorities began seeking pledged donations. The group’s
co-chair Jennifer Granholm, executive director Buffy Wicks and finance
director Diana Rogalle are among those soliciting pledges for Priorities.

Many donors have begged off solicitations until Clinton formally announces,
with some saying they have recently given to other groups associated with
the Clintons.

Granholm and Wicks last year discussed Priorities’ efforts with Michael
Vachon, a representative for billionaire financier George Soros, who
has donated
$25,000 to Ready for Hillary
<http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/george-soros-hillary-clinton-98796.html>.
But Vachon told them Soros had not yet made any decisions about 2016
political spending, sources say.

Los Angeles television producer Marcy Carsey and Boston philanthropist
Barbara Lee this year turned down requests from Granholm to pledge
seven-figures to Priorities, according to sources, despite both having
written recent large checks to other Clinton-related endeavors. Carsey had
given a significant sum to the Clinton Foundation, as well as $275,000 in
the last two years to EMILY’s List and Ready for Hillary, while Lee has
given at least $875,000 in that span to Ready for Hillary, EMILY’s List and
Brock’s American Bridge.

Carsey could not be reached for comment, while a spokeswoman for Lee said
in an email “Barbara receives a number of various requests, and as a matter
of strategy, she does not publicly discuss them.”

Investment banker Robert Wolf, a top bundler for Obama who describes
himself as “fully
<https://twitter.com/robertwolf32/status/526065348412727296> supportive
<https://twitter.com/robertwolf32/status/526065348412727296>” of a Clinton
2016 campaign, nonetheless said he hasn’t pledged to Priorities.

“In 2014, I gave to CGI (the Clinton Global Initiative), Clinton
Foundation, Obama Library and DNC (the Democratic National Committee) and
individual races, so I have not focused yet on 2016 Presidential stuff, but
will at some point,” he wrote in an email.

There is a sense among some donors that donations to various Clinton-linked
efforts are indistinguishable, say sources who travel in Democratic finance
circles. That impression may be reinforced by the involvement of a handful
of key operatives in both the political and foundation fundraising efforts.

Brock and his fundraising team, including his star fundraiser Mary Pat
Bonner
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/us/in-invisible-world-of-political-donor-advisers-a-highly-visible-player.html>,
who also raises money for Ready for Hillary, have raised funds for the
foundation on a pro-bono basis. The foundation official who oversaw the
endowment drive, Dennis
<http://www.politico.com/gallery/2014/01/hillary-clintons-50-influentials/001546-022036.html>
Cheng
<http://www.politico.com/gallery/2014/01/hillary-clintons-50-influentials/001546-022036.html>,
served as a finance director on Clinton’s 2008 campaign and is expected to
play a similar role
<http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/hillary-clinton-2016-elections-114586.html>
in any 2016 bid.

Cheng is stepping down at the end of this week, which some read as a signal
that Hillaryland is officially shifting its attention to a more imminent
campaign.

Clinton Foundation spokesman Craig Minassian credited Cheng with
“diversifying the donor base” of the Foundation, which works on public
health and women’s empowerment initiatives around the world.

Priorities board member Joe Solmonese, a former president of the Human
Rights Campaign, said major donors aren’t going to conflate any of the
pro-Clinton super PACs, let alone the foundation.

“People who write big checks like that are a lot smarter than that,” he
said. “Having many different entities doing many different things is
necessary to win in the context of an election cycle. And donors are
sophisticated enough to evaluate these things individually and to give on
the basis of what they’re passionate about and what there is a need for.”

A veteran Democratic operative with close ties to the Clintons who has been
briefed on Priorities efforts said, “I have not had heard of anyone saying
‘I gave at the office.’ The folks Priorities is talking to are intensely
political people. Many were there for Clinton the first time, they were
there for Obama, they’ll be there for Hillary this time and they’ll be
there for Chelsea if she ever
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/08/06/where-chelsea-clinton-could-run-for-office/>
runs
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/08/06/where-chelsea-clinton-could-run-for-office/>
.”

The operative said it had not been determined whether Priorities would
release the list of pledged donations, casting the pledge push as just in
the “internal discussion” phase. “I’m less interested in the announcement
as I am in the cash.” And the operative also stressed that the overall
fundraising goal had not been definitively determined, while conceding that
waiting for Clinton to declare her intentions creates planning and
fundraising challenges.

“Nobody is going to write a seven-figure check for a cause that has not yet
come to fruition,” said the operative.

The resulting questions about how Priorities would make best use the
interregnum between the Obama and Clinton campaigns has occasionally left
the impression that “there is a lot of lurching over there,” in the words
of one Democrat involved in laying the groundwork for a Clinton campaign.

And there have been lingering tensions from the 2008 Democratic
presidential primary between some Clinton backers and Priorities co-chair
Jim Messina, who ran Obama’s reelection campaign and is said to have taken
a significant behind-the-scenes role
<http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/priorities-usa-jim-messina-hillary-clinton-102804.html>
in shaping Priorities’ strategy.

Then came this week’s blow-up, during which Brock, whose groups defend
Clinton against attacks, suggested that the Priorities leadership was
pursuing “their own personal agendas.”

Granholm dismissed concerns about the in-fighting, asserting in a Monday
night statement, “we all have the same shared goals.”
 Authors:
 View Comments

Eric D. Schwerin
[email-masked]

Sent from my iPhon