Progressive Action Fund

Empowering Progressive Candidates to Hit Hard and Win

M om always told you to play nice.

Unfortunately, mom wasn’t in
poli<cs. In poli<cs, you play for
keeps and you can’t be afraid to tell it like it
is. These are hard <mes which call for hard
truths to be spoken plainly and forcefully.

Referring to Figure 1, you can see that over

the last 26 years this re<cence to take off
the gloves has cost the Democra<c Party,
and the American people, dearly.

Figure 1: Party control of Congress 1995 —2021

Who We Are

The Progressive Ac<on Fund is a registered Poli<cal Ac<on CommiQee dedicated to helping progressive
candidates across the country in compe<<ve general elec<ons. We work with candidates who have
been veQed through a successful primary in elec<ons deemed compe<<ve by official Democra<c
organiza<ons, in order to further progressive causes.

We have iden<fied two issues which hold back Democra<c gains across the board:

1. Democrats are reluctant to “go nega<ve,” which leaves the decep<ons and false narra<ves of their
opponents unchallenged.
2. Democrats shy away from nomina<ng and fully backing progressive candidates.

The Progressive Ac<on Fund will change that.

We are a data-driven organiza<on specifically dedicated to addressing these two internal challenges.

We happily speak the truths which need to be said to win campaigns, so that progressive candidates
and other stakeholders and affiliated organiza<ons don’t have to.

ISSUE ONE: A Reluctance to “Go Nega%ve”

Nega%ve Campaigning Mispercep%ons.

In adjec<ve form, “nega<ve” in Merriam-Webster is “unfavorable.” And as a verb, “to demonstrate the
falsity of.” So, yes, if you’re serious about winning an elec<on, you should probably consider going
“nega<ve.” To put it another way, some suggest subs<tu<ng the term “accountable.” Whatever gets
you where you need to be, we say.

Page 1 of 3
“
We don’t believe in mud-slinging or false narra<ves. We do believe
A candidate clearly won’t in shining a bright light on Republican accountability.
point out his or her
foibles and deficiencies, As Dane Struthers, Partner at Stuthers Nuckels Strategies stated so
so an opponent must.” well in a March 12, 2019 ar<cle in thehill.com: “Informa<on is key
Dane Struthers, Partner at Stuthers Nuckels
Strategies
to making an educated decision, be it how to vote or where to eat.
A candidate clearly won’t point out his or her own foibles and
deficiencies, so an opponent must.”

The Data are on Our Side

Our own proprietary research, as well as independent studies, show “nega<ve” poli<cal adver<sing to be
more effec<ve. In “A Border Strategy Analysis of Ad Source and Message Tone in Senatorial Campaigns,"
published in the June 2018 edi<on of INFORMS journal Marke<ng Science1, the study authors found that
nega<ve adver<sing is powerful in terms of influencing preferences and voter turnout.

A controlled, mul<variate study of our own showed

that during the 2018 elec<on cycle, nega<ve ads
against Republicans were 4.5 <mes more effec<ve
than ads which focused solely on posi<ve messaging
about the Democra<c candidate.2

Using this measure, Democrats would have picked

up an addi<onal 18 seats in the U.S. House had the
$75 million in independent expenditures3 by
Democra<c stakeholders been spent on
“accountability” messages against Republicans,
rather than solely on posi<ve Democra<c candidate
messaging in the 2018 elec<on (See figure at right).

ISSUE TWO: Lack of Support from Democra%c Stakeholder Ins%tu%ons

The Needless Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

It’s a fact. Progressive candidates receive less financial support from stakeholders. For each
progressive policy posi<on they chose, candidates received an average of $263,000 less in
independent expenditures from Democra<c stakeholder ins<tu<ons (for 2018 Democra<c candidates
running in races deemed compe<<ve.4)

For example, a progressive candidate in a winnable race who highlighted LGBTQ equality and ending
for-profit prisons would average $526,000 less in independent expenditures.

Progressive Action Fund Page 2 of 3

Page 2 of 3
fundprogress.org | (206) 705-3467 | hello@fundprogress.org
It’s simple: when Democrats get out in front of issues which affect people of color and
disenfranchised communi<es, Democra<c stakeholders invest less.

That’s less financial support which could make the difference in a compe<<ve race (the only kind we
support) between sending a champion of progressive values to Congress or sending another far-
right crony.

The result: the percep<on among many Democra<c donors and supporters that progressives are
unelectable in a general elec<on becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Help us Send More Progressives to Congress

The data show that when candidates stand up for progressive values, Democra<c stakeholders don’t
invest equally in their success. To stand any chance of passing more progressive policies in Congress,
we need to elect candidates who will stand up for these issues.

Your support of the Progressive Ac<on Fund moves our agenda of elec<ng progressives who
champion progressive policies forward. We have detailed, data-driven strategies for progressives in
races across the country this fall that are winnable.

Contact us at (206) 705-3467 or email joe@fundprogress.org to learn how you can join the fight.

1. Marke<ng Science, INFORMS publica<ons, June, 2018

2. Progressive Ac<on Fund study on file.
3. This figure refers solely to the $75 million spent on posi<ve adver<sing on independent expenditures in U.S. House races in 2018.
4. Progressive Ac<on Fund study on file.

Progressive Action Fund Page 3 of 3

Page 3 of 3
fundprogress.org | (206) 705-3467 | hello@fundprogress.org