Working for Us PAC

By November 2018, hedge fund manager Donald Sussman was listed as the PAC’s largest donor. Other contributors included the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the Women Vote! PAC, the United Auto Workers (UAW), and MoveOn.org Political Action.²

Rosenthal was also a co-founder and CEO of America Coming Together (ACT), a 527 political action committee that claimed to have made 16 million door-to-door contacts prior to Election Day 2004.³ During this period, future Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Donna Brazile complimented Rosenthal for being “as mean and vicious as they come” and the “last great hope of the Democratic Party.”⁴

Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports show that the PAC received its last contributions in 2016 and officially filed to terminate in 2023. ^{5  6}

Background and Leadership

Working for Us PAC was an independent political committee funded by left-of-center individual donors, labor unions and other political committees.²

The Super PAC’s president prior to its termination was Steve Rosenthal, the founder and president of two other political entities: The Organizing Group (TOG) and the Atlas Project.⁷ During the 2016 federal election cycle, TOG was paid $100,000 by Working for Us PAC for “planning and campaign strategy” and “strategic services.”⁸

In 2004, Donna Brazile, who would later become chair of the DNC during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, complimented him for being “as mean and vicious as they come” and the “last great hope of the Democratic Party.”⁴

Rosenthal was also a co-founder and CEO of America Coming Together (ACT), a left-of-center 527 political action committee that claimed to have made 16 million door-to-door contacts prior to Election Day 2004.³ In 2007, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruled that most of ACT’s 2004 campaign cycle donations had violated federal election law, and assessed a $775,000 fine.⁹

FEC reports show that the PAC received its last contributions in 2016 and officially filed to terminate in 2023. ^{5  6}

Campaign Spending

The Working for Us PAC had provided more than $4.7 million in independent expenditures during the four federal election cycles from 2010-2016. The PAC spent money either for or against 13 different candidates in 9 different federal races for U.S. president, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House. In all but two cases the expenditures favored Democrats and opposed Republicans.¹

Working For Us Donation Recipients

California’s 17^th Congressional District (2014)

Seemingly in conflict with its mission as a left-of-center political committee, the Working for Us PAC spent $39,000 in support of the campaign of Vanila Singh, a Republican running in a 2014 Congressional primary in northern California; and $83,000 opposing Ro Khanna, a Democrat, running in the same race. The likely explanation for this behavior is that the PAC’s ultimate goal was to provide assistance to then-U.S. Rep. Mike Honda (D) in his effort to ward off a challenge from fellow Democrat Khanna.

California uses a blanket primary to select candidates for its general elections, meaning all candidates, regardless of party, share the same primary ballot. The top two finishers in this primary, regardless of party, advance to the general election. In this arrangement, when the district skews heavily toward Democrats or Republicans, it is common for the general election to be a one-on-one race between two contestants from the same party.

Such was the case with California’s 17^th Congressional District during the 2014 mid-term election. Khanna, a former official in the administration of President Barack Obama, decided to challenge incumbent Honda in the heavily Democratic-leaning seat. As an Indian-American in a district with a large Indian-American population, and with an early 4-1 fundraising advantage over Honda, Khanna posed a serious challenge to the incumbent.¹⁰

The ideal primary outcome for Honda in this situation would have been for a strong Republican challenger to take one of the top two primary slots along with Honda, thus preventing Khanna from advancing to the general election. This result would leave Honda with a weaker (Republican) general election opponent in the heavily Democratic district.

After Khanna began his challenge to Congressman Honda, anesthesiologist Vanila Singh entered the race as a Republican. Dr. Singh had no prior experience as a candidate, and her only known prior political involvement had been a donation to the campaign of Democratic U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. Singh presented the possibility of stealing enough votes out of Khanna’s base to push him to third place in the primary, and out of the general election. Plainly stated, she was exactly (and quite conveniently) the Republican “opponent” Honda needed in the primary.¹⁰

With these circumstances in play, the decision by Working for Us PAC to spend its money supporting Singh (a Republican) and opposing Khanna (a Democrat) was very likely a calculated strategy to give Honda (a Democrat) the easiest path to reelection. If so, the strategy somewhat failed: Khanna finished second in the 2014 primary, but then narrowly lost to Honda in the general election, only go come back two years later (2016) and win a general election rematch against Honda.

Pennsylvania’s 12^th Congressional District (2012)

Due to redistricting after the 2010 U.S. Census, U.S. Rep. Mark Critz (D-Pennsylvania) and U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pennsylvania)—both incumbents—were both located within Pennsylvania’s 12^th Congressional District. They ran against one another in the 2012 primary election, with Critz the winner who ultimately lost the general election to a Republican. In that primary the Working for Us PAC took sides between the Democrats, spending money in favor of Critz and against Altmire.

Funding

With $1.1 million in donations during April 2016, hedge fund manager Donald Sussman was the largest single donor to the Working for Us PAC through 2018.²

Working For Us Donors (2016)