Federal Election Commission (FEC) records reveal significant expenditures on non-campaign activities by "Leaders We Deserve PAC," which Hogg co-founded despite having amassed over $3 million.
David Hogg and Kevin Lata kicked off the "Leaders We Deserve PAC" following the 2022 midterm elections, promising to be a cradle for Generation Z politicians. Their ambition was clear: to weave young and progressive fibers into the fabric of American politics by financially and strategically supporting Generation Z candidates.
However, an examination of the FEC filings reveals a complex expenditure pattern. Breitbart News reported that a hefty slice of the PAC's budget was channeled into luxury travel, legal battles, and payments to political consultants. This financial management raises questions about the PAC's commitment to its original goals.
In 2023, amidst growing optimism and monetary support from notable figures like Deval Patrick and Gary Sugarman, the PAC's fundraising efforts bore fruit, accumulating slightly over $3 million. Yet, the anticipation surrounding the direct support for Generation Z candidates diminished as only a handful received notable backing.
Among the candidates supported, one lost their race, and another, Maxwell Frost, was already a sitting congressman, raising doubts about the PAC's strategic impact on fostering new political talent. Despite the organization's promising start, the disparity between its aims and actions has sparked conversations.
David Hogg's reflection on the social movements inspired during Donald Trump's presidency hints at the activist's broader vision for political change.
For every year of Trump’s presidency, I think there was a new chapter of a social movement that was born, whether it was the Women’s March, March for Our Lives, the environmental movement, or the Movement for Black Lives.
David Hogg's remarks reveal a nuanced understanding of America's recent political history and an earnest attempt to channel this energy into tangible political success for young progressives. Yet, the operational decisions of "Leaders We Deserve" raise flags about how effectively such aspirations are channeled into concrete support for political candidates.
Notwithstanding the critique, David Hogg remained optimistic about making a substantial impact. He articulated a mission to bridge the undeniable gap for young aspirants in state-level politics, offering a comprehensive support system to elevate promising figures within the Democratic party.
This support system, however, has come under scrutiny for where the funds are going. A significant portion of the raised money benefitted entities such as "Accelerate Political Advisors" and "Elias Law Group," alongside covering lavish expenditures for Hogg and Lata themselves.
The story of "Leaders We Deserve" unfolds against a backdrop of optimism and critique. Despite raising significant funds from a cohort of influential donors, the PAC's journey is marred by questions regarding its expenditures.
FEC filings lay bare the vast sums allocated to consultants and legal fees, with a relatively minor share reaching the intended candidates. This dissonance between the PAC's foundational goals and operational reality marks a pivotal moment for introspection.
Supporters and skeptics alike will be watching to see if "Leaders We Deserve" can reconcile its mission with its methodologies, shaping a future where the promise of Generation Z's political impact is not just a dream but a reality fulfilled through strategic support and judicious use of resources.
In conclusion, the narrative of "Leaders We Deserve" serves as both a beacon of hope and a cautionary tale. The practical challenges of political fundraising and expenditure complicate the ambitious journey to empower Generation Z politicians. As this chapter unfolds, the critical question remains: can David Hogg and the PAC realign their strategies to support the leaders they believe we truly deserve?
