Want to run for president on the Democratic ticket? Priorities USA Action has your back. Perennially among the leading liberal super PACs, the group has become one of the key allies for the Democratic Party’s White House bid every four years.
Priorities was launched in 2011 by two former Barack Obama staffers for the then-president’s re-election bid. Sean Sweeney and Bill Burton established the super PAC as a counter to the growing stable of conservative dark money groups and outside spending, which exploded after the infamous Citizens United decision. Priorities became one of the first liberal super PACs to spend major outside money on ads attacking the Republican nominee—writing the blueprint for the liberal fundraising behemoths to come.
As with most top-level super PACs, Priorities gets the bulk of its funding from the liberal donor world’s deepest pockets and does not rely on small donors to reach its fundraising goals. However, compared to many of its outside spending peers, Priorities is much more accessible to the average voter and has proven itself to be notably more transparent and responsive to changing political dynamics than most groups closely tied to the Democratic Party. However, because of the organization’s reliable base of wealthy supporters and its focus on high-level, national elections, Blue Tent rates Priorities USA as a low priority for most donors, and advises donors to only consider giving to the group, favoring direct donations to midterm campaigns and grassroots organizing efforts instead.
These conclusions, explained in the following brief, are based on extensive reporting and independent research, including examination of FEC data and interviews with experts in campaigns and political advertising. Priorities USA Action did not respond to requests for comment from Blue Tent.
What are its core strategies?
As one of the top outside-spending supporters of the Democratic nominee for president every four years, Priorities dedicates most of its resources to media in the presidential race.
Early in its existence, Priorities focused almost entirely on negative ads, spending $64.7 million opposing Mitt Romney in 2012 and nothing supporting President Obama. This is consistent with how many of the leading liberal outside spenders operate, since campaigns largely focus on promoting their candidate and leave the mud-slinging to other groups. Priorities continued this strategy in 2016, spending more than $126 million on ads bashing Donald Trump.
After the disappointing loss that year, the group committed to major changes in strategy. In 2020, the super PAC spent $52.9 million on pro-Biden ads, nearly as much as the $57.8 million it spent opposing Trump that year. The spots highlighted Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris’s integrity compared to Trump’s record in office, pitching them as steady and reliable in the midst of Trump’s chaos. This was a departure from other major Democratic super PACs, such as the Senate and House Majority PACs, both of which continued to spend the vast majority of their funds on negative ads.
What is its track record of achieving its goals?
For Priorities’ top goal, electing a Democratic president, the sample size is small: a landslide re-election victory for Barack Obama in 2012, a disappointing loss for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and a win for Joe Biden in 2020.
Outside of the presidential contests, Priorities has spent money on some Senate and House races as well, first making significant contributions in 2018 (less than one percent of Priorities’ 2016 expenditures went to senate races). OpenSecrets.org calculated that of the total money spent by Priorities that year, only 28.2% was spent on races won by Democrats. The super PAC spent over $9 million on the tightly contested Florida senate race, where Republican Rick Scott defeated incumbent Bill Nelson by fewer than 10,000 votes, or less than a quarter of a percent. But Priorities also spent nearly that much combined across senate races in North Dakota, Missouri and Indiana, all of which were won by Republicans by five points or more. On House races, Priorities spent less than $5 million, the vast majority on elections won by Democrats.
Priorities’ spending on senate races in 2020 was similarly disappointing to 2018, with only 21% of their expenditures contributing to Democratic victories. However, the majority of the super PAC’s non-presidential election funds went to close races, with only Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine—widely seen as vulnerable that year—winning by more than five points.
In addition to the obvious metric of whether the Democrat wins the White House or not, Priorities measures the efficacy of its advertisements and impact using other internal metrics. According to its own data, released in a memo last year, Priorities ads reached 37.4 million voters in eight states, increased support for Biden by an average of 1.25 percentage points, and reduced support for Trump by an average of 2.4 percentage points. Without specifics on how Priorities calculated these figures or comparable metrics from other super PACs, it’s hard to say exactly how effective the group was last cycle, but it’s encouraging to see Priorities closely tracking its progress and sharing its results with the public.
Does it have strong leadership and governance?
Priorities recently announced new leadership for 2021. Guy Cecil, who has been the super PAC’s chairman and senior strategist since 2015, will continue to serve as board chairman; the group’s former paid media director, Danielle Butterfield, will take over as executive director. Cecil is a career Democratic aide and campaign operative, having worked on a number of campaigns across the country and on the Hill for Sen. Michael Bennett. Cecil served as political director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from 2006 to 2008, as field director for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and returned to the DSCC as executive director in 2010.
Butterfield began her career as a digital advertising manager for Obama for America in 2012 and as deputy director of digital advertising for Hillary for America in 2016. In between the two campaigns, she worked for ad agency Bully Pulpit Interactive, and first began working for Priorities in 2017. Butterfield took the reins from Patrick McHugh, who was executive director during both the 2018 and 2020 cycles, and left in 2021 to form his own consulting firm.
Other new members of the leadership team include deputy executive directors Aneesa McMillan and Nick Ahamed. McMillan has a decade of experience in communications for various Democratic groups and politicians, including working on the 2016 Bernie Sanders presidential campaign and then progressive congressman Keith Ellison’s subsequent bid for chairman of the DNC. Ahamed formerly worked as a data scientist for the well-respected Civis Analytics, and began working on data for Priorities in 2018.
Is its staff diverse and culturally competent?
Priorities did not respond to requests for comment from Blue Tent, and does not publish its staff demographics publicly.
In a 2020 report by the racial justice organization Democracy in Color, Priorities was awarded a “B+” for demographic targeting and a “B-” overall. Democracy in Color in particular commended the super PAC’s partnerships with groups helping to improve voting rights for people of color. More recently, the group announced it plans to spend $20 million to support voting rights and push back against Republican attacks on democracy.
What kinds of donors support it?
Like other major Democratic super PACs, Priorities is predominantly supported by wealthy individual donors, other super PACs and dark money groups, as well as labor unions.
In its first election year, 2012, the super PAC brought in nearly $80 million. Top among the contributors were Renaissance Technologies’ James Simons ($5 million), Newsweb Corporation’s Fred Eychaner ($4.5 million), and Dreamworks’ Jeffrey Katzenberg ($3 million). Priorities also took in considerable donations from top labor unions that year, like the plumbers and pipefitters union ($2.2 million) and the National Association of Air Traffic Controllers ($1.25 million); organized labor has continued to support Priorities in the last two presidential cycles, even as news coverage of the super PAC has focused on celebrity and uber-rich mega-donor individuals.
The 2016 cycle brought a new crop of liberal mega-donors like Donald Sussman ($21 million), Haim Saban ($12 million), George Soros ($10.5 million), Daniel Abraham ($9 million), and Dustin Moskovitz ($6 million). The super PAC ultimately spent $133 million that cycle, almost all of it going to opposition media targeting Trump, and became the top-spending super PAC in the country, liberal or conservative. Although Clinton had lost, Priorities had firmly positioned itself as the leading outside-spending ally of the Democrats’ quest for the White House.
In 2020, the super PAC was one in a stable of outside spending and dark money groups at the Democrats’ disposal, and its donor roll reflected it: A large portion of its money came from other super PACs, like SMP ($38 million); dark money groups, like the Sixteen Thirty Fund ($4.5 million); As well as Priorities’ own 501(c)(4) arm ($26.7 million).
How transparent is it about its spending, results, and learning from its mistakes?
Priorities is notably more transparent than many of its peer organizations. Memos like the internal ad-reach metrics and consistent press releases on staffing and strategy updates keep donors, peers and constituents in the loop about how money is being spent.
Following Hillary Clinton’s loss, Priorities head Guy Cecil told the Washington Post that “Priorities had a specific function in 2016, which was to make Trump unpopular. While we were successful at that, it wasn’t enough.” It seems Cecil and the rest of Priorities leadership took this lesson to heart in 2020, shifting the group’s strategy from one of near-total opposition media to a near 50-50 split between bashing Trump and supporting Biden. While there are, of course, a variety of factors at play in any given presidential race, making it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of this strategy change, it’s encouraging to see the super PAC is willing to discuss its rationale publicly and make adjustments as needed.
For the 2020 cycle, Priorities also hired a group of media and advertising specialists, creating an in-house media buying team that might otherwise have been tasked to an outside vendor. The group claims to have saved $12 million thanks to this internal team, though we don’t know how Priorities calculated this number.
Another good sign came in the form of an April 2021 memo discussing Democrats’ spending on elections in general. While not exclusively focused on Priorities’ ad buys from the cycle, the memo outlined some of the party’s shortcomings across the board, highlighting in particular an overemphasis on traditional media despite the increasing amount of time voters spend engaging with digital media. The memo laid out recommendations to begin spending earlier in future races in order to establish a relationship with the targeted voters, and use TV and digital media with more nuance in order to reach relevant voters, especially in House contests.
As mentioned above, Priorities also released a memo last year laying out its internal metrics, including amounts of money raised and spent, the number of voters reached and the impact of ads on voters. The methodology behind these numbers was not made public, but sharing their data in this way puts Priorities far ahead of most super PACs in terms of transparency and accountability.
Does it have clear and realistic plans for the future?
Along with a series of reports evaluating the Democratic Party’s successes and failures from 2020, Priorities also began laying the groundwork for the 2022 midterms early in 2021. The super PAC made plans in May to spend millions on digital ads touting Biden’s pandemic recovery package, doubling down on its strategy of earlier, more positive messaging (that month, Priorities also released a memo analyzing “new Biden voters,” encouraging Democrats to focus on policy accomplishments if they hoped to maintain power in 2022). In October, Priorities continued its push in this direction, publishing poll numbers showing that if Democrats fail to enact policies to expand Medicare and lower prescription drug costs, they could face serious consequences in the midterms.
After making significant investments in litigation in 2020, Priorities will also continue to expand its reach into work outside of political expenditures. In June, the super PAC announced a $20 million voting rights campaign aimed at countering increased GOP voting restrictions and attacks on elections. The campaign will consist of digital ads, voter information, voter outreach and litigation. Most recently, the super PAC ran ads in support of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe, who lost his bid to Republican Glenn Youngkin.
Priorities released a memo in the wake of the disappointing 2021 election results in Virginia and New Jersey that offered insights into how it plans to approach the 2022 midterms. The memo argued that “Democrats must prioritize infrequent and new voters who turned out for President Biden. These programs must include early persuasion campaigns targeting those with little partisan connection or long-term political interest.” It said further that “in most competitive races, turnout alone is not enough. We need to appeal to those swing voters who supported Democrats in 2018 and 2020.” The group also stressed that Democrats needed to tighten their messaging to focus on “building the middle class, supporting families, and protecting democracy.”
Conclusion
Priorities USA stands out among the top-level outside spenders on the left. As the Democratic Party debates the best ways to capitalize on its historic fundraising, Priorities seems intent on correcting mistakes and pushing beyond traditional PAC expenditures. Among the top tier of liberal outside spending and campaign organizations, Priorities seems the most likely to make meaningful adjustments heading into the next election cycle, and other groups should pay close attention to the organization’s advice.
However, like most of its peers, Priorities is still primarily focused on national-level campaigns and multi-million dollar ad buys. Most of its top donors are among the richest of liberal allies, giving seven or eight-figure amounts in a single election cycle, meaning small dollars are unlikely to have much of an impact. For these reasons, Blue Tent ranks Priorities USA as a low priority, and advises progressive donors to only consider giving to the group. Small donors should instead focus their funds on year-round, grassroots organizing efforts, as well as direct contributions to progressive candidates running in the midterms or for state and local offices.