Political Action Committees

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Most of Scott Stringer's Supporters Have Fled. Not the Teachers' Union

      by

      The United Federation of Teachers is boosting Mr. Stringer’s embattled campaign with an advertising blitz. In the weeks since a former campaign volunteer accused Scott M. Stringer of sexual misconduct, many of the Democratic mayoral candidate’s most crucial supporters, including the Working Families Party and a phalanx of progressive politicians, have abandoned his campaign. But powerful teachers’ unions are not only sticking with Mr. Stringer, the city comptroller — they are, starting Tuesday, offering a much-needed boost to his embattled campaign in the form of a multimillion-dollar advertising blitz.The American Federation of Teachers, the country’s second-largest teachers’ union, and the United Federation of Teachers, its large and influential New York City chapter, are the primary backers of the $4 million television and digital advertising effort. The ads and mailers will be paid for by NY 4 Kids, a super PAC created to “keep the issues affecting our schools, kids and teachers front and center in this election,” according to a release from the group. The A.F.T. has contributed $1 million so far, and the PAC has commitments for the remaining $3 million. The effort by the PAC, which is primarily funded by the unions, will more than triple the Stringer campaign’s own spending on ads, which has totaled about $1.3 million so far. The unions make up an essential part of the coalition that is still standing with Mr. Stringer before the Democratic primary in June. But their continued support for the candidate amounts to a very risky political bet for the U.F.T. in particular, which has failed to back a winning candidate for mayor since 1989. The union has significant power over key education decisions, but its influence in the city’s electoral politics could be weakened considerably if it once again bets on the wrong candidate. That has not deterred Randi Weingarten, the president of the A.F.T. and one of the most powerful union leaders in the country, from defending Mr. Stringer. On Sunday, she stood with the candidate and Representative Jerrold Nadler on Mr. Stringer’s home turf, the Upper West Side, to praise his record as a longtime local politician. “I’m very proud of that endorsement because of what Scott has done and what he will do,” said Ms. Weingarten, the former president of the U.F.T. “I think he’ll be a great mayor.”“Am I troubled by the allegations? Of course,” she said, adding, “I’m also a unionist who has dealt with false allegations.”Tyrone Stevens, a spokesman for Mr. Stringer, said the campaign was “thrilled to have the ongoing support of champions for public education, because they know the next mayor needs to be ready on day one to invest in our children and bring our schools back stronger than ever.”Some parents and mayoral candidates have accused the union of slowing the pace of school reopenings in New York over the last year. But with the majority of families still choosing to learn remotely, there is no evidence of a significant public backlash against the union. Other major unions have endorsed Mr. Stringer’s rivals, with several lining up behind Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president. But the U.F.T. backed Mr. Stringer, a longtime ally of the union, last month. When the U.F.T. president, Michael Mulgrew, was asked whether his 200,000-member union would support whoever the Democratic nominee was, he replied that Mr. Stringer would in fact be the nominee.The United Federation of Teachers endorsed Scott Stringer, right, in April.Benjamin Norman for The New York TimesThat was a cheekily confident projection even then, when limited public polling showed Mr. Stringer regularly polling third or fourth in the race. But just a week after the U.F.T. endorsement, Jean Kim, a political lobbyist who worked on a 2001 campaign for Mr. Stringer, said the candidate groped her on several occasions during that race. Mr. Stringer has vehemently denied the allegations, and has said that he and Ms. Kim had a brief, consensual relationship. Mr. Stringer has been competing for the left flank of the city’s electorate against Maya Wiley, a former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, and Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit leader, both of whom have picked up endorsements and energy from progressive groups in the wake of Ms. Kim’s allegations. In a recent interview with Bloomberg News, Mr. Mulgrew said his union was still backing Mr. Stringer in part because the accusations have not been proven. “One reason why unions got formed is that people get treated unfairly,” Mr. Mulgrew said. “There are lots of allegations all the time in the work we do.”Jeffery C. Mays contributed reporting. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Improvement Association, Chapter Five: ‘Democrat, Republican, White, Black, Green’

      by

      Listen and follow The Improvement Association.Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | RSSFrom the makers of Serial: The Improvement Association. In this five-part audio series, join the reporter Zoe Chace as she travels to Bladen County, N.C., to investigate the power of election fraud allegations — even when they’re not substantiated.In this episode: The Bladen Improvement PAC’s power is threatened when an unlikely candidate enters the race for county commissioner. People outside the PAC are starting to make clear that they have their own ideas about how to build Black political power in the county.A view along Hwy. 87 in Bladen County.Jeremy M. Lange for The New York TimesBehind this series:Zoe Chace, the reporter for this series, has been a producer at This American Life since 2015. Before that, she was a reporter for NPR’s Planet Money team, as well as an NPR producer.Nancy Updike, the producer for this series, is a senior editor at This American Life and one of the founding producers of the show.Transcripts of each episode of The Improvement Association will be available by the next workday after an episode publishes.The Improvement Association was reported by Zoe Chace; produced by Nancy Updike, with help from Amy Pedulla; edited by Julie Snyder, Sarah Koenig, Neil Drumming and Ira Glass; editorial consulting by R.L. Nave and Tim Tyson; fact-checking and research by Ben Phelan; and sound design and mix by Phoebe Wang.The original score for The Improvement Association was written and performed by Kwame Brandt-Pierce.Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Julie Whitaker, Seth Lind, Julia Simon, Nora Keller, Emanuele Berry, Ndeye Thioubou, Alena Cerro and Lauren Jackson. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Improvement Association, Chapter Four: ‘Let Them Pull the Red Wagon’

      by

      Listen and follow The Improvement Association.Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | RSSFrom the makers of Serial: The Improvement Association. In this five-part audio series, join the reporter Zoe Chace as she travels to Bladen County, N.C., to investigate the power of election fraud allegations — even when they’re not substantiated.In this episode: With the Bladen Improvement PAC’s reputation suffering in light of years of cheating accusations, resentment is stirring within its ranks and a prominent member turns against the leadership. Nevertheless, Horace Munn, president of the PAC, joins with his closest allies to make a bold move by supporting a political upset at the center of the county.A forest road through Bladen Lakes State Forest.Jeremy M. Lange for The New York TimesBehind this series:Zoe Chace, the reporter for this series, has been a producer at This American Life since 2015. Before that, she was a reporter for NPR’s Planet Money team, as well as an NPR producer.Nancy Updike, the producer for this series, is a senior editor at This American Life and one of the founding producers of the show.Transcripts of each episode of The Improvement Association will be available by the next workday after an episode publishes.The Improvement Association was reported by Zoe Chace; produced by Nancy Updike, with help from Amy Pedulla; edited by Julie Snyder, Sarah Koenig, Neil Drumming and Ira Glass; editorial consulting by R.L. Nave and Tim Tyson; fact-checking and research by Ben Phelan; and sound design and mix by Phoebe Wang.The original score for The Improvement Association was written and performed by Kwame Brandt-Pierce.Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Julie Whitaker, Seth Lind, Julia Simon, Nora Keller, Emanuele Berry, Ndeye Thioubou, Alena Cerro and Lauren Jackson. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Dark Money in the New York Mayor’s Race

      by

      This year’s election is shaping up to be the city’s first in which super PACs play a major role.The New York City mayor’s race already has a national-politics tinge thanks to one guy: the businessman Andrew Yang, whose long-shot campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination sputtered out early last year, but who is now seen as a front-runner in the city’s mayoral election. (That’s despite his knack for eliciting groans on Twitter.)But it’s not just the personalities that are bridging the divide between local and national politics. It’s also the money.This mayoral election is shaping up to be the city’s first in which super PACs — the dark-money groups that sprang up after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission — play a major role.But it’s also the first race in which a number of candidates are taking advantage of a city policy that allows campaigns to gain access to more generous public matching funds, based upon their level of grass-roots support.With the potentially decisive Democratic primary just over two months away, our Metro reporters Dana Rubinstein and Jeffery C. Mays have written an article looking at how the hunt for super PAC cash is complicating the race — and raising ethical questions about some campaigns, including a few that are also receiving public matching funds. Dana took a moment out of her Friday afternoon to catch me up on where things stand.Hi Dana. So, the Citizens United decision was handed down in 2010. Yet it seems as if this is the first time we’re hearing about super PACs being used in a big way in the New York mayor’s race. How does this development interact with the city’s newly beefed-up matching-funds policy, which is aimed at encouraging small donations? Is this a case of contradictory policies — or, as a source in your story put it, “like patching one part of your roof and the water finds another way in”?There was some independent-expenditure (or “I.E.”) activity in the 2013 mayoral primary, but it wasn’t candidate specific — with one possible exception. There was a super PAC called New York City Is Not for Sale that was candidate specific, in the sense that it was targeting one candidate, Christine Quinn, and it got its funding from Bill de Blasio supporters. But this is really the first time we’ve seen candidate-specific I.E.s. As they’ve proliferated on the national level, New York City candidates have been taking their cues from the national scene.If you talk to folks at the Brennan Center, who are big advocates for the matching-funds program, they’ll point to it and say that voters should take heart, because in many ways it is proving itself to be a success. The six mayoral candidates who qualified for matching funds this year were the most ever. The matching funds are being doled out in accordance with how many voters from New York City are contributing to campaigns, and that means someone like Dianne Morales, who has no previous electoral history and was not at all a big player in the New York political scene before this election, is able to make a real case for the mayoralty. She is able to mount a real campaign. She got like $2 million in matching funds in this round.But then you have this parallel universe of super PAC money. And in some cases you have candidates who are getting matching funds — which are our taxpayer dollars — and benefiting from super PACs. Of course, super PACs are supposed to be independent and not coordinate with campaigns, but regardless, for some voters it’s hard to see that and think it’s an ideal scenario.Basically, what we have is two parallel fund-raising systems: One is almost completely ungoverned, and the other is very strictly regulated and involves taxpayer money.Who is leading the race for super PAC money in New York? And what’s the overall state of the race these days, money matters aside?Shaun Donovan, the former housing secretary under President Barack Obama, is participating in the matching-funds program, and he has a super PAC. Scott Stringer, the city comptroller, has a super PAC too — although a much less lucrative one — and is also taking matching funds. Andrew Yang has one super PAC that was formed by a longtime friend of his named David Rose; it’s raised a nominal amount of money, but no one is under the illusion that it won’t start raising a lot soon. And there’s this other super PAC connected to Yang that’s supposedly in the works, and that Lis Smith, who was involved in Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign, is involved with.Then there is Ray McGuire, a former Citigroup executive and one of the highest-ranking African-American bank executives ever. He has a super PAC that has raised $4 million from all kinds of recognizable names. They’re spending a lot, with the goal to just sort of increase his name recognition.As far as the state of the race, we have no idea. As you can attest, there’s been virtually no credible polling here. In terms of the available polls, there is some uniformity to what they suggest: Yang has a lead, yet half of voters are undecided. You have Eric Adams, Scott Stringer, Maya Wiley, and then the rest of the pack.It is both too soon to say and also alarmingly close to the actual primary election day, June 22. We really don’t have a sense of where things stand. When you add to this ranked-choice voting, which is new this year, it’s really an open question.Earlier you mentioned Shaun Donovan, whose story figures prominently into the article you and Jeff just wrote. Fill us in on what’s going on there.In addition to being the former housing secretary for Obama, he was the budget director. So he’s a very well-regarded technocrat — who also is the son of a wealthy ad-tech executive. Someone formed a super PAC to support his candidacy for mayor; that super PAC has raised a little over $2 million, and exactly $2 million of that sum was donated by his dad.It’s completely within the realm of possibility that his dad was like, “You know what, I really love my son, I think he’d be a great mayor, I’m going to fund his super PAC,” without any coordination about how that money would be used. But it’s hard for some people to imagine a scenario where a father and son don’t talk about this kind of thing. Or maybe it isn’t! The point is that it’s almost unknowable, isn’t it?There’s a lot of winking and nodding involved in this stuff, and you don’t necessarily need direct coordination in order to have what is effectively coordination.On Politics is also available as a newsletter. Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Outside Money Floods Mayor’s Race, Raising Ethics Concerns

      by

      For the first time since the Supreme Court allowed unlimited spending in elections, candidate super PACs are flooding money into a New York mayoral election.New York City’s pivotal mayor’s race has unleashed an army of super PACs the likes of which the city has never seen.Raymond J. McGuire, the former Citigroup executive, has one. So, too, does Shaun Donovan, President Barack Obama’s former housing secretary, and Scott Stringer, New York City’s comptroller. Andrew Yang, the former presidential candidate, has one and soon may get another.The proliferation of super PACs supporting individual candidates in the race — a familiar theme in presidential races, but unheard of in a New York City mayoral contest — points to the gravity of this year’s election in the midst of a pandemic.But it also raises the question of whether the super PACs are simply a way to get around campaign finance limits and may lead to scrutiny of possible coordination between the outside funds and political campaigns, a practice that would violate campaign finance rules.The issue came into sharp focus on Thursday, when New York City’s Campaign Finance Board withheld the release of public matching funds to Mr. Donovan’s campaign. The board said it wanted to ensure there had been no coordination between the campaign and the super PAC supporting him, which is largely funded by his father.In a statement he read during the Thursday meeting, board chairman Frederick Schaffer said the board required further information from the Donovan campaign and New Start N.Y.C., the super PAC created to support Mr. Donovan’s campaign.The board first reached out to New Start N.Y.C. for more information on March 25, following a New York Times article on the super PAC, according to its treasurer, Brittany Wise. The super PAC responded the very next day.Michael Donovan, Mr. Donovan’s father, said there has been absolutely no coordination between him and his son. They talk “about the grandchildren” and other personal matters, he said.“I’m very dis-involved, and my son is very very careful that we don’t talk about anything involving the PAC,” said Mr. Donovan, an ad tech executive, when reached by phone.Ms. Wise said there had been no coordination with the campaign. Jeremy Edwards, a spokesman for Mr. Donovan, said, “We follow the law.”The questions surrounding Mr. Donovan illustrate the continued repercussions of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed unlimited outside spending in elections.Coordination between super PACs and political campaigns is notoriously hard to prove. And the penalties, when there are any, are often slaps on the wrist.The stakes are particularly high in New York City, which is deploying its new, more generous matching funds program — designed to reward candidates who raise small-dollar donations from New York City residents — for the first time in a mayor’s race. On Thursday, the board doled out another $10 million to six qualifying candidates in the race, including Mr. Stringer and Mr. Yang.The board gave out $2.3 million to Kathryn Garcia, the former sanitation commissioner; $2.2 million to Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit head; $900,000 to Maya Wiley, the MSNBC analyst and former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio; and $300,000 to the Brooklyn borough president, Eric Adams — candidates who so far have no apparent super PAC support.Critics argue that the rise of super PACs threatens the efficacy of the new system by allowing candidates to effectively have it both ways. Mr. Donovan, Mr. Stringer and Mr. Yang are participating in the matching funds program. Mr. McGuire is not.“Right now, independent expenditures are a monster that’s getting bigger and bigger, and the good guys have not figured out a way to slay it yet,” said John Kaehny, executive director of Reinvent Albany, a good-government group. “It’s like patching one part of your roof and the water finds another way in.”There were no super PACs explicitly supporting individual candidates in the 2013 mayoral primary, officials said.This mayoral election is different. Mr. McGuire’s super PAC has raised more than $4 million dollars from donors like Kenneth Langone, the billionaire co-founder of Home Depot; the art world philanthropist Agnes Gund; and the real estate developer Aby J. Rosen.Mr. Donovan’s has raised more than $2 million, nearly all of it from his father. The super PAC for Mr. Stringer, a collaboration between Food and Water Action and New York Communities for Change, a social justice group, was just formed on Monday. It aims to raise a modest $50,000 to $100,000, using those resources to mobilize a pre-existing volunteer network, according to its treasurer, Sam Bernhardt.Mr. Yang’s super PAC, Future Forward NYC, has only raised $35,000 so far, according to state records, though its founder, the entrepreneur and investor David Rose, said he aims to raise more than $7 million.Mr. Rose suggested that the existing spending limit for campaigns that participate in the matching funds system — $7.3 million — was not enough to win a New York City mayor’s race.“New York City is the single biggest market around, and to try to do a big campaign on quote-un-quote that kind of money is challenging in this media market,” he said in an interview. “My goal is to see if we can double that.”Lis Smith, a former adviser to the presidential campaign of Pete Buttigieg, said she was also in the process of organizing a super PAC supporting Mr. Yang’s candidacy, aiming to counteract the bombardment of negative advertising that the presumptive front-runner is expected to face in the coming weeks.The goal is to raise $6 million, Ms. Smith said, so that Mr. Yang’s message was not “drowned out by millions of dollars in negativity.”The PAC, reported by Politico, is partnering with veteran ad makers and political operatives who have worked on behalf of Mr. Obama and Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.“Every day Andrew’s opponents wake up, get out of bed, attack Andrew, and then go to sleep,” Ms. Smith said. “We need to make sure their negativity doesn’t drown out Andrew’s message.”Kimberly Peeler-Allen, the treasurer of New York for Ray, the super PAC supporting Mr. McGuire’s candidacy, said the spending allows Mr. McGuire to compete. The PAC has spent more than $2 million on ads to introduce the candidate to the general public.Ms. Peeler-Allen acknowledged that super PACs are problematic. But she and Ms. Smith also argued that it makes no sense to unilaterally disengage in a race with so much at stake.“Until there is significant campaign finance reform in this country, we have to use the tools that we have to create the change that we want to have,” Ms. Peeler-Allen said.Mayor de Blasio, who has himself engaged in creative fund-raising efforts that have drawn legal scrutiny, agreed.“We need a reset in this whole country on campaign finance,” he said on Thursday. “We need a constitutional amendment to overcome the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, and we need to reset the whole equation to get money out of politics across the board.” More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Improvement Association, Chapter Two: ‘Where Is Your Choice?’

      by

      Listen and follow The Improvement Association.Apple Podcasts | Spotify | StitcherFrom the makers of Serial: The Improvement Association. In this five-part audio series, join the reporter Zoe Chace as she travels to Bladen County, N.C., to investigate the power of election fraud allegations — even when they’re not substantiated.In this episode: Zoe talks to people in North Carolina who believe the Bladen Improvement PAC has been cheating for years. She tries to get beyond the rumors and into specifics; in the process, she comes face to face with the intense suspicion and scrutiny leveled against the organization. In the middle of another election, Zoe follows members of the PAC to watch how they operate and tries to make sense of all these allegations against them.In this series, the reporter Zoe Chace describes Bladen County’s notorious case of election fraud from 2018 as “individual people, in a tight-knit place, using their relationships to either make money or take revenge. Or both.”Jeremy M. Lange for The New York TimesBehind this series:Zoe Chace, the reporter for this series, has been a producer at This American Life since 2015. Before that, she was a reporter for NPR’s Planet Money team, as well as an NPR producer.Nancy Updike, the producer for this series, is a senior editor at This American Life and one of the founding producers of the show.Transcripts of each episode of The Improvement Association will be available by the next workday after an episode publishes.The Improvement Association was reported by Zoe Chace; produced by Nancy Updike, with help from Amy Pedulla; edited by Julie Snyder, Sarah Koenig, Neil Drumming and Ira Glass; editorial consulting by R.L. Nave and Tim Tyson; fact-checking and research by Ben Phelan; and sound design and mix by Phoebe Wang.The original score for The Improvement Association was written and performed by Kwame Brandt-Pierce.Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Julie Whitaker, Seth Lind, Julia Simon, Nora Keller, Emanuele Berry, Ndeye Thioubou, Alena Cerro and Lauren Jackson. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Improvement Association, Chapter One: ‘The Big Shadoo’

      by

      Listen and follow The Improvement Association.Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher From the makers of Serial: The Improvement Association. In this five-part audio series, join the reporter Zoe Chace as she travels to Bladen County, N.C., to investigate the power of election fraud allegations — even when they’re not substantiated.A few years ago, Bladen County was at the center of a major news story — the only time in recent history a congressional election was thrown out for fraud. In a hearing that followed, a Black political advocacy group was mentioned and dragged into the scandal. The group was the Bladen County Improvement Association PAC, and after the hearing, Horace Munn, one of the group’s leaders, reached out to Zoe with an invitation to come to the county.In chapter one, Zoe goes to North Carolina to hear what’s behind all these cheating allegations.A tree in the water at Jones Lake State Park in Bladen County, N.C.Jeremy M. Lange for The New York TimesBehind this series:Zoe Chace, the reporter for this series, has been a producer at This American Life since 2015. Before that, she was a reporter for NPR’s Planet Money team, as well as an NPR producer.Nancy Updike, the producer for this series, is a senior editor at This American Life and one of the founding producers of the show.Transcripts of each episode of The Improvement Association will be available by the next workday after an episode publishes.The Improvement Association was reported by Zoe Chace; produced by Nancy Updike, with help from Amy Pedulla; edited by Julie Snyder, Sarah Koenig, Neil Drumming and Ira Glass; editorial consulting by R.L. Nave and Tim Tyson; fact-checking and research by Ben Phelan; and sound design and mix by Phoebe Wang.The original score for The Improvement Association was written and performed by Kwame Brandt-Pierce.Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Julie Whitaker, Seth Lind, Julia Simon, Nora Keller, Emanuele Berry, Ndeye Thioubou, Alena Cerro and Lauren Jackson. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      It’s Not Too Early to Start Courting Latino Voters

      by

      Democrats will need their votes to keep control of the Senate and House after the midterms.Latino voters helped deliver the presidency to Joe Biden in 2020 by securing key victories in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. But Latino voters also moved an average of 9 percentage points from Democrats to Republicans in the 2020 elections compared with 2016.In places like Miami-Dade County in Florida and the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, that swing spiked to over 20 points. What’s more, seven of the 14 House seats that switched from Democratic to Republican control were in majority-minority districts, many of which had large Latino populations.As we now look ahead to the midterms, it’s likely that many close races will run through states and districts with large Latino populations. Democrats would do well to address their Latino vote problem if they want to keep control of the Senate and House.To understand why Democrats lost congressional races that they should have handily won, my organization Solidarity Strategies took a deeper look at key areas of concern from the general election. We focused on Miami-Dade County and five Texas border counties where Latinos make up a majority of the population.In Florida, Mr. Biden’s campaign, congressional candidates and Democratic super PACs set a state record for campaign spending. In the final 30 days before the general election, combined they spent over $14 million on Spanish-language radio and TV in Miami, according to Federal Election Commission reports. But by then, well over half of Latino voters in Miami had cast their ballots.By contrast, the Trump campaign maintained a consistent line of communication with, and outreach to, the Latino community that went beyond TV advertising starting two years before the 2020 election. Its Spanish-language strategy included in-person canvassing, mail, digital advertising, newspaper ads and a network of influencers who spread disinformation and echoed Donald Trump’s talking points on digital media. The misinformation they peddled was not rebutted by the Democrats until it was too late in the election cycle to make a difference.Many of the same patterns played out in Texas. In the last 60 days before the elections, Democratic candidates and super PACs spent nearly $2 million on advertising in the two Spanish-language media markets in the Rio Grande Valley. While Republicans spent a mere $33,000 in those markets during the same period, they went on to outperform Democrats in these densely Latino counties. This was no stroke of luck, but rather the result of a massive voter mobilization effort a decade in the making.Since the 2000s, organizations like the Libre Initiative, a Latino conservative advocacy group within the Koch political network, have been working tirelessly to promote conservatism in Hispanic communities. Through them, the G.O.P. has built support while providing resources to the Latino community. For example, the Libre Initiative offers English courses, economic empowerment sessions and pathways to citizenship to immigrants throughout the South and Southwest. It also helps them study for driver’s license exams, citizenship tests and the G.E.D.Come election year, Republicans coordinated an aggressive social media campaign, accompanied by canvassing programs, and hosted car parades with well over 500 cars in Texas. They didn’t need to empty their wallets in the final weeks before the elections because they had maintained a constant drumbeat of communication in the area for months.Grass-roots organizations like Lucha did the same for Democrats in states like Arizona. It is among the network of organizations that have put in the work to turn the rising number of Latinos in the state into a force for change. For over a decade, they have campaigned, marched, protested and knocked on doors to organize voters on issues like immigration. They also helped deliver the Latino vote to Mr. Biden in the general election.This brings us to the next problem: Latinos in the Rio Grande Valley are working middle class and rely heavily on jobs in oil and gas plants, border security and other government agencies. The narrative that Democratic candidates spun about immigration reform and eliminating fossil fuels fell flat with these voters.There was no lack of money raised and spent on congressional races nationally. In fact, Democratic candidates, party committees and super PACs out raised and out spent Republicans in almost every race Democrats lost to Republicans in 2020. Yet it is evident that their outreach in these communities was not thoughtful. A cluster of Spanish-language TV ads late in the game will not turn out voters.Super PACs raised and spent over $1 billion on independent expenditures by October 15, 2020. According to Federal Election Commission reports, over 99 percent of that money went through firms that are majority-white owned, and less than 2 percent of it went to Latino-led super PACs. There were few if any people in the room who could point out flaws in the messaging or imagery used in the ads these firms produced.We need to prioritize Latino voters as we do white swing voters, and use every tool at our disposal to initiate and nurture a thoughtful conversation. Democrats then have got to get their message in front of Latinos before they cast ballots, not after. They must work to build trust now, so they can ask for their votes later.The political consulting and campaigning industry has historically been run by white establishment consultants who don’t come from our community. That needs to change. Hiring diverse staff members and consultants to run campaigns, make budgetary decisions, develop regional messaging and flag messaging errors and inconsistencies would be a critical step forward. The Democratic Party and its super PACs should be restructured to include more Latinos in leadership and decision-making positions.If you don’t invest in Latino voters early, don’t be surprised when they don’t show up for you.Chuck Rocha (@ChuckRocha) is the founder of Solidarity Strategies and the president of Nuestro PAC.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More