A few weeks ago, we noted that anti-gun activist David Hogg wanted to be a Democratic National Committee (DNC) vice chair. We suggested caution be exercised before the DNC put an impulsive, often ill-informed individual with little real-world experience in such a prominent position, especially considering he would be given direct access to steering Democrat policy and public perception.
The DNC did not heed our warning.
Now, not only has the DNC put an avowed anti-gun activist in a prominent position within the organization—a tacit, if not full-throated, approval of his support for eviscerating the Second Amendment by Democrat leadership—but they have also given Hogg access to private information on likely millions of donors that he is now, reportedly, using for his personal benefit.
According to several media reports, the young gun-ban advocate wasted little time to exploit his newly-acquired access to the DNC database to send out requests for contributions. At least one request, however, included a link to Leaders We Deserve, a Political Action Committee (PAC) Hogg helped establish in 2023.
A New York Post article notes that such fund raising does not violate DNC rules, but it does appear to have rankled some party officials.
“It’s especially important for all Democratic national officials to focus on raising support for the party and not using their position to raise money for themselves or their personal political PACS,” an unnamed senior Democratic Party official told the Post. “It’s a stunning lack of judgment that is concerning to many people.”
Another unnamed “top Democrat” commented, “David Hogg—talk about living up to your name. A trough of DNC dollars all for him and he doesn’t seem to give an oink.” These comments only add to what has already been reported indicating there may be some “buyer’s remorse” over the elevation of Hogg within the party.
The comment about raising “money for themselves” likely stems from what has been reported as Hogg being paid at least $100,000.00 per year by his PAC. That’s a pretty good salary for someone fresh out of college with virtually no real-world work experience on his resume. The only discernible skill Hogg seems to have is getting media attention, so perhaps that is what he is paid for.
In fact, a quick glance at the Press section of his PAC’s website shows virtually nothing other than articles promoting Hogg, so maybe he’s just a PR resource. If there were articles promoting specific candidates, they were overshadowed by the attention focused on Hogg (a strange strategy for a PAC that says it wants to help elect candidates). The only thing readers were made aware of Hogg running for was DNC vice chair, which was, of course, covered in detail.
Now, we are not in the business of telling the DNC how to run its operation, but we will point out that it does seem odd it will allow its database to be used in a way that does not directly benefit the DNC and may even be at odds with DNC goals.
Contributions to Leaders We Deserve will, presumably, be used to support candidates that PAC endorses. And while those candidates will likely be mostly, if not all, Democrats, the only criteria the PAC appears to require for consideration of an endorsement is that a candidate be a “young progressive.” Being a Democrat does not appear to be required. There also do not appear to be any specific policies the PAC endorses, other than its frequent, approving references to gun control.
In addition, many on the PAC’s Advisory Board are well-known for their extremist anti-gun views, including quite a few officials from anti-gun organizations. So it is probably safe to say that the one position that the PAC insists on seeing a candidate take before it considers endorsing is opposition to gun ownership in America.
In other words, not only does Hogg’s position with DNC indicate the organization embraces his anti-gun views, but the fact that it allows him to use the organization’s resources to raise funds for an anti-gun PAC reinforces that impression.
We also mentioned that Hogg’s personal fund raising may be at odds with the DNC’s goals, so you may ask how we come to that assertion.
While policy discussion is scant at Leaders We Deserve, there are other things noted that may not always serve the DNC so well. The website refers to supporting younger candidates who will “change the face of power,” and “who aren’t afraid to challenge the status quo.” It also refers negatively to politicians who are “older, wealthier and white.” There are an awful lot of prominent Democrats currently in office who are clearly “older, wealthier and white,” and who many would describe as both “the face of power” and part of the “status quo.”
Charles Schumer?
Nancy Pelosi?
Elizabeth Warren?
What will be the DNC’s position if Leaders We Deserve, with funds raised by David Hogg using DNC resources, decides it wants to support a younger candidate in a primary race against a Democrat incumbent who is “older, wealthier and white,” or part of the “status quo”?
The DNC has put itself in quite a difficult position. Promoting Hogg to such a prominent position within the organization was likely an attempt to try to attract younger voters—mostly those under 30—to the party. That voting bloc helped re-elect Donald Trump last November, as his support from them was greater than any Republican candidate since 2008.
Maybe Hogg’s youth will help attract younger voters to Democrat candidates, but what if he uses his position to raise funds against long-time Democrat incumbents?
To make matters worse for Democrats, a recent poll from Quinnipiac shows approval for Congressional Democrats has hit an all-time low, while Republicans have hit a record high. And if that were not bad enough for the Democrat caucus, many consider Quinnipiac polls to skew in favor of Democrats. Who knows how low Democrat elected officials have really sunk in the eyes of Americans?
It may be too early to lay any blame for the flailing Democrat Party directly at the feet of David Hogg or those who have promoted him at DNC. But it also doesn’t seem likely that someone who describes himself as “politically toxic” and “too radical for American politics” was a wise choice for a leadership position in a political party that seems to be losing support with the American voters.
We’ve said it before and we will say it again—Democrats are not a monolithic bloc of anti-gun extremists. There are plenty of Democrats who support the Second Amendment (or would like to) and, based on the number of Democrats buying guns over the last several years, that population is growing. Sadly, the same cannot be said about Democrat Party leadership. Anti-gun extremists like Senator Chuck Schumer and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi have been forcing the party down a path opposed to the Second Amendment for decades. We’d love to see that dynamic change and have the Democrat Party abandon attacking the U.S. Constitution as a litmus-test, partisan issue.
Now, with David Hogg ensconced in a key leadership position at the DNC, that change doesn’t seem likely. But maybe his being so “politically toxic” and “radical” will awaken other Democrats to work harder to reset the course for their party.
Or maybe Hogg will just follow through with his apparent desire to replace “older, wealthier and white” politicians who are part of the “status quo” and find younger candidates to primary Schumer, Pelosi, and other Democrats who have been in office for decades.
If nothing else, the Hogg era at DNC will likely be interesting, to say the least. It has been thus far.
More Like This From Around The NRA
