The Path Forward Democracy in Color with Steve Phillips
Our Org Our Founder In the Press
Race. Politics. The New American Majority.
 

Democratic SuperPACs 2020 Report Card: The Good, The Bad, and The Wasteful

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

We can do better than this. With a few notable exceptions, the vast majority of organizations in the Democratic ecosystem are functioning far below the standards of excellence that these perilous times demand. All progressive stakeholders—and especially the people who contribute money to Democratic SuperPACs—should demand a much higher level of adherence to best practices as these organizations and their leaders execute their plans to spend $600 million this cycle working to defeat Donald Trump, win back control of the U.S. Senate, and expand the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. 

Our Sixth Year of Reporting on Democratic Party Performance

For the past six years, I have worked with colleagues to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the organizations in the Democratic Party and its surrounding ecosystem by conducting analyses and issuing report cards to the public at large and interested stakeholders. In 2014, the Fannie Lou Hamer Report Card analyzed Democratic Party spending and found that White consultants received fully 98% of the $514 million dollars spent by Democratic Party organizations. In 2016, we rated the campaigns of six candidates running for U.S. Senate, and in 2018, we analyzed the spending of the Democratic Governors’ Association, especially in light of the historic opportunities and challenges associated with having three African American Democratic gubernatorial nominees. This year we looked at the spending of Democratic SuperPACs, paying particular attention to those working to defeat Trump and flip control of the Senate.

Main Takeaways—Low Standards of Excellence and Millions Wasted So Far

Our findings range from pleasantly surprising revelations (in a couple of cases) to deeply disappointing and highly troubling ones. The biggest takeaway is that, as a rule, Democratic SuperPACs do not function with high standards of excellence in terms of transparency and rooting decisions in rigorous, data-driven analysis. As a result, tens of millions of dollars have been wasted so far on the 2020 presidential election cycle on unproven and ineffective strategies, imperiling progressive prospects for victory in November. 

Fortunately, it is not too late to make course corrections. Smart spending and the intelligent allocation of resources in the final two months of the campaign can absolutely provide the margin of difference in a number of critical races and places. We are all well aware of the enormous stakes in this election. The challenges before us demand peak performance and excellence in execution.

Insist on High Standards and Accountability

All progressive stakeholders—from the ten-dollar donor and volunteer postcard writer to the millionaires and billionaires who care about this country and our planet—should hold the SuperPACs and their leadership accountable for adhering to the highest standards of performance. We offer this report as a resource in that effort.

Methodology

CRITERIA

Organizations were graded on the following criteria:

• Transparency—How much information do they provide to stakeholders about what their plans are, what is the rationale and basis for those plans, and what progress is being made or obstacles encountered?

• Geographic Targeting—Where is the organization targeting its spending, and how do those decisions correlate with what is known about the most promising places for Democrats to make breakthroughs this year?

• Demographic Targeting—Which portions of the population and electorate is the organization targeting, and how likely is that population to be influenced by their efforts and spending? Specifically, we looked at how much of their efforts were focused on persuasion of people not supporting Democrats versus mobilization of Democratic-inclined constituencies. 

• Data-Informed Strategy—How much evidence is there that the spending decisions are rooted in a rigorous review and logical interpretation of available data? How many different sources of data are reviewed and incorporated into decision-making? Does the organization go beyond reliance on current polling snapshots to review past election results and Census data to identify electoral trends that could inform spending decisions?

SOURCES OF INFORMATION:

• A survey was sent to each organization asking them to provide whatever information they had explaining their 2020 strategy, spending, and plans.

• A team of data scientists and political experts analyzed the public filings of the organizations, including FEC reports and IRS forms to ascertain how and where funds were being spent.

• A review and analysis were also conducted of public communications by the organization including email updates to supporters, press releases, and information on their websites.

Key Findings

• Little Transparency and Accountability— Our overarching finding is that transparency is the exception, not the rule in Democratic politics. With a few notable exceptions (NextGen Climate, Progressive Turnout Project, and Fair Fight, in particular), most organizations do not clearly spell out what their strategy is, why they are pursuing that strategy, and what progress they are making towards their goals. Stakeholders rarely get reports or updates, and post-election analyses and summations are almost unheard of. It is well-known at this point that transparency yields accountability and feedback loops that can test and improve any organization’s operations. Such basic behavior is sadly sorely lacking in Democratic politics.

As a result of this lack of transparency and accountability, tens of millions of dollars are being wasted on ineffective and unsound strategies, most notably American Bridge’s multi-million dollar effort to change the minds of the most intractable Trump voters. The Senate Majority PAC’s decision to spend more than $10 million in Michigan, where the Democratic incumbent is running strong in all the polls, and Iowa, which multiple data points show is a steep mountain for Democrats to climb, all the while spending $0 in Georgia (through July) which has two winnable Senate seats up this year is confounding.

• Inadequate and Insufficient Use of Data—Despite living in an era of “Big Data” where enormous amounts of information are available to decision-makers, much of SuperPAC spending relies on an overly narrow and shallow amount of data. Contemporary polling results are the coin of the realm, and too many organizations leave it at that. Polling is just a snapshot in time, however, and more robust data sets can show electoral trends. In particular, too few organizations are looking at the margin of difference in statewide elections in 2016 and 2018 and cross-referencing continued demographic changes. That level of analysis would show that Arizona and Georgia, in particular, should receive far more funding than they currently receive.

• Too Pale, Too Male—Nearly half of all Democratic voters are People of Color (46% in 2016), and those numbers have only grown more diverse as more than 7 million teenagers of color have turned 18 since Trump was elected (hundreds of thousands of them in Michigan and Wisconsin, two states decided by just 34,000 votes in 2016). Decades of empirical evidence have shown that voters of color are the most reliably Democratic of all, and logic would dictate that it would behoove Democratic prospects for victory if their leadership had the kind of insight into this core constituency that comes from lived experience. Unfortunately, despite this problem being highlighted repeatedly over the years and protestations that Black Lives Matter and representation matters notwithstanding, the disappointing fact remains that nine of the ten largest SuperPACs are run by Caucasians, and seven of them by White men. While nearly everyone in the Democratic ecosystem would agree that this racial reality is sub-optimal, those who hire and promote people into positions of leadership in these organizations have yet to rectify the problem. And the absence of transparency and accountability described above makes it even more difficult to remedy the situation.

• A Few Bright Spots—It is not all doom and gloom. There are some bright spots and some evidence of progress towards better functioning. NextGen Climate and Fair Fight stand out as exemplars of transparent and data-driven operations. The clarity of their focus and mission, and the correlation of their spending and activities with that clarity is admirable and a solid proof point that excellence is, in fact, achievable. Emily’s List and Progressive Turnout Project were also refreshingly candid and forthcoming with information about their operations and plans. 

Nobody likes criticism, but accountability and healthy debate are hallmarks of successful and effective communities. Given the stakes in this election and at this point in history, it is imperative that we all open ourselves to critique and summon one another to our highest and best levels of performance. We can do better. We must do better. The country, indeed the planet, is counting on us.

In Solidarity and Hope,

Steve Phillips,
Founder, Democracy in Color

 

2020 Report Cards: Grading Overview

 

Organization
Total Raised 6/30/20
Transparency
Geographic Targeting
Demographic Targeting
Data-informed Strategy
Overall grade
Senate Majority PAC
$148.4M
D
C
C+
D+
C-
House Majority PAC
$75.1M
B-
B
C
C-
C+
Emily's List (Women Vote)
$74.5M
A
N/A
B
B
B+
Priorities USA Action
$58.1M
B-
A
B+
B-
B-
American Bridge 21st Century
$43.6M
A
C-
D-
F
D+
League of Conservation Voters
$42M
C
C
Incomplete
C+
C
NextGen Climate Action
$37.3M
A+
A
B+
B+
A-
Progressive Turnout Project
$37.1M
A
A-
A-
A-
A-
Unite the Country
$32.2M
C+
C
B
D
C+
Fair Fight PAC
$26.2M
A+
A
A
A+
A
Total Raised
$644.6M
 

 Senate Majority PAC / Majority Forward

Website: senatemajority.com
Founded: 2011
Total Raised in 2020: $166,793,848

Transparency D Senate Majority PAC's website and social media presence is sparse. It does much of its work via the entity Majority Forward, a 501c4 that does not disclose its spending to the FEC, and that entity's public representations about its program plans are also minimal. What information is available there does not include any rationale or explanation of the strategy being employed. News reporting does include several stories about SMP's plans for spending on races, but that information does not conform with SMP's FEC filings, making it difficult to discern how well its statements to the media reflect its actual plans. Past major donors to SMP have confirmed they have never received written explanations for the group's spending plans nor written post-election summaries about what worked and what didn't.
Geographic targeting C Last year, we unveiled a Senate winnability index, developed by PhDs and data scientists, that showed there are eight races (in seven states) that should be prioritized based on the likelihood of flipping them from Red to Blue: CO, AZ, GA, ME, NC, TX, and IA. However, SMP's FEC reports indicate that their funding priorities omit the two races in Georgia with candidates poised to win. As of June 30, 2020 SMP had not reported any expenditures on those races. Meanwhile, SMP spent over $7.8 million in Iowa, a state lacking most of the strong indicators of a likely victory that are present in GA. Also, SMP has spent more than $5M in Michigan, which is not a Democratic pickup state, and the Democratic incumbent leads by nearly 8 pts in polling.
Demographic targeting C+ Although its spending through June 30th only indicates slightly over $1 million in Arizona, it appears that significantly more has been committed to the state. SMP's 2018 funding in AZ was well timed, and they focused on supporting the existing statewide field program led by local organizations with expertise in outreach to Latino and Native American voters. Moreover, in the 2020 cycle, it is supporting entities such as Somos Votantes, which has a strong record of successful voter outreach to Latinos. However, in Georgia, as of the end of July, SMP had yet to spend or commit funds to either of the two Senate races, much less focused the use of their funds on GA's African American voters who would be critical to a 2020 victory. In North Carolina, the top target of SMP, there is little evidence of any targeting of African American voters, who comprise 50% of Democratic voters and should therefore be the focus of 50% of the $12 million spent there.
Data-informed strategy* D+ The grossly disproportionate focus on Iowa and Michigan, the omission of Georgia, and the overlooking of African Americans in North Carolina raise serious questions about the underlying analysis of where and how to prioritize spending. SMP's dollar allocation varies greatly from our winnability index, developed by PhDs and data scientists. While reasonable minds can differ, there is scant indication that SMP takes into account any data beyond current polling numbers and fails to account for past election results, and population trends and shifts that can affect the composition of the electorate.
OVERALL GRADE C-

Senate Majority PAC 2020 Expenditure Overview

*In January 2020, a team of Data Scientists, led by Dr. Julie Martinez Ortega, developed a multi-factorial formula to assess the winnability of the various seats the Democrats need to flip in order to gain control of the U.S. Senate. This table compares the SMP investments with the relative winnability of the seats. The underlying analysis and calculations can be found here. Note that the Montana ranking was made before Steve Bullock entered the race, which would raise its winnability.

House Majority PAC

Website: theHousemajoritypac.com
Founded: 2011
Total Raised in 2020: $75,114,917

TransparencyB- Unfortunately, House Majority PAC was one of the few organizations that failed to respond to our repeated requests for information, therefore missing the opportunity to provide insight and clarity about their plans. On their website, they do offer some level of depth and specificity about where they plan to run television ads in the fall, and this information is useful to the rest of the progressive ecosystem.
Geographic targeting B An accurate read is made difficult by the failure to provide information, but an analysis of their spending patterns to date and their stated plans shows that they are in fact targeting many of the most important districts for holding and expanding the Democratic House majority.
Demographic targeting C From what we are able to glean, the target demographic for most of HMP's spending is supposed swing voters in closely-contested districts. The fact that television ads aimed at persuading voters is the primary weapon in their arsenal reinforces that conclusion. Many, if not most, of these districts, however, can be won by maximizing turnout of Democratic voters, but there is little evidence that that is the focus of HMP.
Data-informed strategy C- Their website suggests that they make extensive use of research and polling, but their FEC filings do not make it readily apparent that they are in fact doing so. Of greater concern is the monolithic use of television advertising as their primary tool for impacting election outcomes. Ample political research and empirical studies have shown that television advertising is, at best, limited in its efficacy, and allocating resources to increasing voter turnout of Democratic constituencies is more cost-effective (in fact, that is how CA-21 was flipped in 2018, as a result of extensive door-knocking, phone-banking, and GOTV of largely Latino voters who more than made up the 800 vote margin of difference in that race). A data-driven approach would manifest itself in a more sophisticated and comprehensive suite of tools and interventions, but there is little evidence that that is how HMP is allocating its resources.
OVERALL GRADE C+

 

EMILY’s List (Women Vote)

Website: emilyslist.org
Founded: 1985
Total Raised in 2020: $74,496,799

Transparency A EMILY's List's website and public facing self-representations not only reveal but also proactively promote the candidates on which it is focusing its work. Leadership was responsive to requests for detailed background information on their work.
Geographic targeting n/a EMILY's List does not use a geographic approach in its work.
Demographic targeting B 46% of Democratic voters are People of Color, and 35% of the women endorsed by EMILY's List for U.S. House seats are Women of Color. 47% of the dollars it has contributed to these House seats are for WOC (bundled). The top five House recipients of bundled support are WOC. Of the eight regional directors and four finance advisors who live in the states and have influence over how the campaigns are run, three are POC. It is unclear within districts, which voter populations they are targeting, but it is notable and positive that they are exploring partnerships with BlackPAC, Somos Votantes, BOLD PAC, as well as piloting a partnership with One Fair Wage that is focused on service and restaurant workers who are largely WOC interested in changing wage and worker conditions on a local level. We would like to see more information on how much of their spending is focused on trying to persuade supposed swing voters (costly, inefficient, and ineffective) versus trying to mobilize core Democratic voters (best return on investment).
Data-informed strategyB On the positive side, EMILY's List does utilize opinion research to inform their independent expenditure work, and, unlike many in the Democratic ecosystem, they at least did conduct post-election analysis of their work (particularly of their 2018 efforts). Also admirable is the fact that they "know their lane," focus on digital and paid media, and work in partnership with membership groups doing field. Their (and everyone's) data and analysis should go beyond current opinion research to include Census data on district-specific demographic shifts and analysis of past election results to determine the trend line of Democratic performance and potential.
OVERALL GRADE B+

 

Priorities USA Action

Website: priorities.org
Founded: 2011
Total Raised in 2020: $58,138,959

Transparency B- The Priorities USA website and its social media presence outline in broad and general terms parts of their work and how they hope to accomplish their stated goals. The website's media section describes its latest ad buy, the target voters they hope to reach with it, the vehicles through which they'll disseminate it, and how much they intend to spend on the ad buy. They promptly provided thorough responses to our requests for information. Fundamentally, however, Priorities is a largely opaque operation, spreading operations across their 527, 501c4, and 501c3 arms in ways that make it nearly impossible to verify the accuracy of statements, hold themselves accountable to public scrutiny, or facilitate collaboration with partners. The Washington Post reported in July 2020, for example, that Priorities said it had raised $165 million. The only verifiable number, however, is $56 million (FEC records), so partners seeking to coordinate their work with Priorities' efforts have little information to go on.
Geographic targeting A Priorities has identified AZ, FL, MI, WI, and PA as the most critical presidential battleground states, which align with what the best data and analysis show as the most promising places to focus efforts this year. Its broadcast television and digital ads as well as its general program efforts are in these priority states.
Demographic targeting B+ To date, Priorities has allocated 37.5% of its program budget toward programs that "uniquely target or directly target voters of color," who comprise 46% of Democratic voters. They report plans for a $24 million investment focused on persuasion and mobilization of voters of color. 21.3% of its advertising through broadcast and digital ads is reaching Black and Latino households. It has also attempted to tailor its People of Color-oriented programs to the specific needs of POC voters within its priority states and regions. The Black and Latino work for 2020 continues its 2019 programs that were tested and found to be effective. Priorities has also provided significant financial support for voter rights litigation in partnership with POC organizations such as Voto Latino, A. Phillip Randolph Institute, and others. In short, there is meaningful breadth of POC work, but the lack of transparency makes it difficult to assess the depth. Furthermore, it is difficult to ascertain the relative balance between spending on persuasion (less cost-effective or impactful) and mobilization (higest return on investment). A $24 million investment focused on people of color sounds significant on first impression, but if the organization is really spending $165 million as they say, then it is a significantly smaller percentage of their budget than people of color are in the Democratic electorate.
Data-informed strategyB- Priorities has not only used data to inform its resource allocations, it has invested heavily in developing in-house analytics skills with an eye toward improving decision-making as well as minimizing expense. They reference a 2019 experiment and applying lessons learned from that effort, which is positive. Their (and everyone's) data and analysis should go beyond current opinion research to include Census data on district-specific demographic shifts and analysis of past election results to determine the trend line of Democratic performance and potential. Here, again, the lack of transparency impedes a quality assessment. The Priorities 501c4's IRS report in 2018, for example, lists $2.4 million spent on polling, which is an astoundingly large expenditure in a modern high-tech era when a poll costs $8k-$9k. So while they clearly have and use data, which is good, how they get it and use it is a question. Of greatest concern in this presidential election year, however, is that there is little indication of what conclusions they reached about the failure in 2016 when they were the largest Democratic SuperPAC in the country, having spent nearly $200 million in a failed effort to defeat Trump, and what course corrections, if any, they have made as a result of the 2016 failure.
OVERALL GRADE B-

American Bridge 21st Century

Website: americanbridgepac.org
Founded: 2010
Total Raised in 2020: $43,560,575

Transparency A American Bridge 21st Century provides a clear roadmap of their ad buys and rationale behind their targeting choices in publicly available materials such as their website and in press releases.
Geographic targeting C- AB PAC's targets include key states of MI, WI, and PA but omit other critical battleground states like AZ, NC, and FL. In addition, their "Swing County Project" within MI, WI, and PA are questionable places to prioritize spending given their low capacity to increase statewide votes sufficiently due to the small populations in those counties. Moreover, their "Swing Counties" do not include the counties where the college educated White or People of Color voters who comprise the base of Democratic supporters are concentrated.
Demographic targeting D- AB PAC explicitly identifies small town rural voters and seniors in the "Swing County Project" counties as their priority targets, and states that the reason for this prioritization is because these individuals are necessary to a Trump defeat. They do not target young voters, newly registered voters, African American, POC or Muslim voters, college-educated White voters, single women voters, or any of the other core constituencies of the voters who have supported Democratic candidates in recent elections and whose enthusiastic support will be central to a 2020 victory in MI, WI, and PA. An examination of their ad buy content reveals a focus on former Trump voters, senior citizens, and farmers. Moreover, AB PAC created media content on COVID featuring a Mexican American daughter of a COVID victim but failed to identify her as such. And there's no indication that they created a Spanish-language version of the ad for use in battleground states like AZ or FL with large Latino populations despite the fact that these two states are experiencing COVID surges, especially among POC populations, and this content would likely resonate there.
Data-informed strategy F The preponderance of empirical data shows that Democrats lost MI, WI, and PA because of low Black voter turnout and Obama voters defecting to 3rd- and 4th-party candidates (e.g. Trump received fewer votes than Romney in WI, disproving the notion that Obama-Trump defections flipped that state). Since 2016, the most meaningful shift in the electorate has been among college-educated Whites moving towards the Democrats (as documented extensively by journalist Ron Brownstein), helping flip the House in 2018. AB PAC's spending, however, runs completely contrary to what the data says they should be doing. They are quite explicitly targeting the voters least likely to be won over, based on all available evidence. While they are in important states, there is no evidence cited to support the omission of other critical battleground states. Furthermore, the "Swing Counties" do not align with the turnout needs for 2020 victories, and there is no explanation offered to support the choice to prioritize these counties relative to others with large numbers of Dem-supporting voters who must be mobilized in order for Dems to win the state.
OVERALL GRADE D+

 

League of Conservation Voters

Website: lcv.org
Founded: 1969
Total Raised in 2020: $41,984,618

Transparency C Unfortunately, the League of Conservation Voters Victory Fund was one of the few organizations that failed to respond to our request for information about their work and programs, both manifesting the problem of lack of transparency and hampering our efforts to develop an accurate picture of their work. Furthermore, while their website has some general information on their plans, and they published a "2020 Plan of Action," there is little specific information on how they're spending the millions of dollars they've raised for political work in 2020. Their score is not lower because they are part of an effort with NextGen Climate—GiveGreen—that has quality and accessible information about candidates to support. But even the valuable GiveGreen information sheds little light on how LCV spends its money.
Geographic targeting C Again, accurate assessment is hindered by lack of transparency, forcing a reliance on FEC reports. Those reports show some smart geographic targeting in terms of spending in AZ and MT Senate races, which are legitimate pickup opportunities. It's impossible to ascertain the efficacy of the anti-Trump spending without knowing where those funds are being directed.
Demographic targeting

Incomplete

 Unable to determine from the limited public information.
Data-informed strategy C+ The limited available information shows that $5 million was given to Priorities USA. Therefore Priorities USA's "B-" score on data-informed strategy is partially imputed to LCV. The $200k allocated to Idaho—a state with little progressive potential in statewide elections at least—raises serious questions about the underlying empirical foundation for the spending decisions, and so that additionally lowers LCV's overall grade for this category.
OVERALL GRADE C

 

NextGen America

Website: nextgenamerica.org
Founded: 2013
Total Raised in 2020: $37,347,505

Transparency A+ NextGen America has the best and most extensive online presence that includes a thorough description of its activities. Its website expressly states, "NextGen America is working to turn out people under the age of 35 who are less than likely to vote or who are not currently registered to vote." It provides quantitative information to demonstrate the share its target voters comprise of the overall electorate. It describes its program: one-on-one discussions, online outreach, and direct messaging via text and email platforms. And it provides a map of where it is engaged in this outreach work.
Geographic targeting A NextGen provides an online map of which states it's working in. Additionally, it provides specific goals for each of those locales for voter reg and voter turnout.
Demographic targeting B+ NextGen's focus is on voters under the age of 35. While many of the voters they work with are people of color, having a more explicit focus on specific groups of color and a more conscious race analysis when looking at "young people" will improve their effectiveness and impact.
Data-informed strategy B+ NextGen has an in-house data team that provides year-round information about voter behavior and demographics in potential areas of investment. It is staffed with experienced and skilled data scientists. One of the most determinative data points for voter preference is racial identity, in general, and African American racial background, in particular. Incorporating and leading with a race-conscious lens on their admittedly robust data analytics will make their work that much more effective.
OVERALL GRADE A-

 

Progressive Turnout Project

Website: turnoutpac.org
Founded: 2015
Total Raised in 2020: $37,121,160

Transparency A Progressive Turnout Project's website and public representations explicitly and clearly outline their program plans and their rationale. What's more, they provide this information in Spanish as well as in English. PTP promptly provided thorough responses to requests for information.
Geographic targeting A- PTP is active in 17 states it considers battlegrounds for the presidential and Senate elections in 2020. These include all but one of those that our data scientists have identified as priorities. And within these states, they have anchored their work in the cities and regions that align with what the evidence shows are the most promising areas of focus. Given the small number of states that are true battlegrounds, they would do well to further concentrate their resources in a more focused subset of those 17 states.
Demographic targeting A- PTP focuses its efforts on registered, inconsistent, likely Democratic voters, as well as new voters. About half of its targeted voters are under the age of 35, about half are POC, and about half sat out the 2016 election. The exact demographics of the targets vary with the specific needs of each metro area where they are investing. Given the heavy Democratic propensity of voters of color, in general, and African Americans, in particular, a greater emphasis on those constituencies is likely warranted.
Data-informed strategy A- Ample empirical evidence proves that direct voter contact is more effective and efficient than large-scale television ads, and in accordance with established best practices, PTP strives to focus its resources on voter contact rather than TV ads. Similarly, they hire local people to do voter contact work, and use the tried and true approach of multiple deep contacts with voters. Their targeting overall corresponds with documented evidence from recent elections and reflects the lessons it has learned. Given that all empirical data shows African Americans are overwhelmingly the most Democratic demographic grouping, there should be a more public and explicit incorporation of that data point into their work and targeting.
OVERALL GRADE A-

Unite the Country

Website: unitethecountry.com
Founded: 2019
Total Raised in 2020: $32,179,144

Transparency C+ Unite the Country does have a website which provides some information, including a strategy memo on its blog that has some discussion of plans.
Geographic targeting C We were able to discern that UTC spent a few thousand dollars on Facebook ads in NC, MI, and FL that are oriented toward Black voters over the past few months. It's unclear whether other voters of color were targeted and what the level of investment in that work might be.
Demographic targeting B In the most recent statement (7/17/20) on its website, UTC says it's focused on "suburban women, labor households, Black voters, Latino voters, and young progressives." However, prior descriptions of its work only mentioned suburban woman in battleground states.
Data-informed strategy D UTC did not respond to multiple requests for information about its decision-making processes.
OVERALL GRADE C+

 

Fair Fight PAC

Website: fairfight.com
Founded: 2018
Total Raised in 2020: $26,243,931

TransparencyA+ Nobody in American politics has laid out as detailed a strategy for change as Fair Fight and its founder, Stacey Abrams, nor has anybody been as creative and transparent in communicating those strategies and plans. From a 304-page bestselling book, "Our Time is Now," to an Amazon documentary, "All In: The Fight for Democracy," to a 16-page publicly available memo, "The Abrams Playbook," to a New York Times op-ed by Fair Fight Executive Director Lauren Groh-Wargo, the Fair Fight leaders have not only been transparent, they have been ubiquitious. And on top of all of that, they send detailed monthly "Stakeholder Updates" to their supporters. Their efforts stand in stark contrast to the typical progressive MO of cloaking plans and efforts in opaque organizations and vague descriptions.
Geographic targeting A Fair Fight is crystal-clear in its analysis of which states are most at risk from right-wing voter suppression, and they are concentrating their efforts in exactly the right places. They have sent dozens of staffers into 18 states to ramp up the Democratic voting rights infrastructure, including establishing voter hotlines and creating voter protection teams to be in place for the primaries so they can prepare for the general election.
Demographic targeting A Not only is Fair Fight philosophically unafraid to heavily invest in communities too often overlooked by progressives—African American, Latinx, AAPI, Native American and young voters of all races—they also prioritize those investments because those are the highest value ROI activities related to scaling the systems and efforts needed to mitigate the impact of voter suppression in the fall. They are clear about the focus of their efforts and aggressive in implementing plans to assist those target communities.
Data-informed strategyA+ In their books, memos, updates, and public statements, the Fair Fight team meticulously explains the data-driven basis of their activities and how that data leads them to a strategy most likely to yield desired results. In the Abrams Playbook, for example, the memo breaks down vote share by racial group (AAPI, Latinx, African American, Native American, Other, and White) for 2014, 2016, and 2018 as a way of illustrating trends and the most promising places to focus efforts. Few other organizations conduct such analysis, and even fewer still publicly share said analyses.
OVERALL GRADE A