Hillary Clinton’s staff and the Democratic National Committee leadership have been struggling for months to finalize a joint fundraising agreement over a basic problem: The Brooklyn-based campaign doesn’t trust the national party structure with the money.

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was one of the last major politicians who stayed with the Clinton campaign in 2008, and though officially neutral now, is widely seen as a Clinton loyalist. The DNC finance chair has already been raising money for Clinton.


But years of neglect from the White House — and what’s perceived by the campaign as mismanagement by DNC leadership — has left the Clinton camp convinced the organization is nowhere near ready for 2016. That starts at the top: Though Clinton and her close circle look on Wasserman Schultz more kindly than do President Barack Obama and White House aides, they are wary of some of the decisions made under her leadership, those who know the Clinton campaign say.

The Clinton campaign’s chief administrative officer, Charlie Baker, is serving as the point man to start laying the groundwork for what Clinton aides expect will be an eventual takeover of the national party structure, according to sources familiar with both DNC and Clinton activity. While DNC staffers are officially neutral, most see her as the eventual nominee, and several staffers describe a “first among equals” approach to her when dealing with the primary field.

A joint fundraising agreement would enable events to raise the $2,700 maximum for Clinton and the $33,400 level for the DNC from the same donors. The deal is standard practice in primaries, and the DNC is hoping to eventually sign these with all the Democratic candidates.

The campaign has insisted that any money raised through joint fundraising activities be put in what’s essentially a lockbox until the general election campaign. The DNC wanted access to all the funds immediately. Baker, who’s been negotiating with DNC CEO Amy Dacey, said no.

Instead, Baker laid out in a series of memos what the campaign will allow spending on, according to people familiar with them: building out the opposition research on Republican candidates as well as improving the DNC’s technological resources and other infrastructure. The memos specifically rule out access for the Clinton campaign to any information the DNC is gathering or tracking on any of the other Democratic candidates.

One reason the Clinton allies at opposition research group American Bridge spun off the rapid response unit Correct The Record was so that group could coordinate with — and defend — the Clinton campaign because the DNC would not be able to do until after she wrapped up the nomination. But, say Democrats familiar with the decision making, it was also a way for the front-runner’s camp to further empower ally David Brock over Wasserman Schultz.

The Clinton campaign points as a model to Al Gore’s 2000 campaign: well ahead as a front-runner himself long before he was the nominee, Gore also demanded restrictions on DNC spending out of his joint fundraising agreement until his campaign took full control.

“Just like candidates have done in past cycles, we’re happy to be working with the DNC staff to prepare for success in the primary,” said Clinton spokesman Jesse Ferguson. “But that planning isn’t the focus of our campaign — earning every vote in the primary is.”

The joint fundraising agreement is still unsigned, though the day it will be is getting closer. Among the outstanding issues: Wasserman Schultz is looking to earmark some of the funds for her Democratic Victory Task Force, the post-2014 midterms autopsy she ordered.

For the Clinton campaign, the fundraising stakes are enormous. The $45 million she raised and the $15.6 million her supportive super PAC Priorities USA Action raised are far ahead of others, but she’ll need to rapidly increase the pace to put her on track for the expected $1 billion-plus 2016 race — and the DNC, with its much higher donation limits, would be a prime vehicle for that. It could also be a critical satellite of support in the general election.

The Clinton campaign is weighing how much to step up its involvement. There’s no effort to remove Wasserman Schultz or Dacey from their positions, but the campaign may push to install a point person who would layer over them and have final say over all major decisions.

The other Democratic campaigns are even further from signing joint fundraising agreements. And that’s not the only point of engagement where they’re trailing.

The presidential campaigns of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb have all been in touch with the DNC as well in recent weeks. But none have taken anywhere near the level of active interest that Baker’s demonstrated on behalf of the Clinton campaign. The DNC has offered all campaigns briefings and low-level access to their research, technology resources and voter files. Besides the Clinton campaign, the Sanders campaign has taken the most active interest, whereas the O’Malley campaign — which often complains of Clinton bias at the DNC — has barely been in touch with the national organization.

“All the campaigns talk to the DNC. Some talk more than others, because the DNC goes out of its way to make certain programs available to everybody, particularly on the tech front, the digital front and the research front,” said Mo Elleithee, who recently left as DNC communications director to start the Georgetown Institute of Politics and Public Service. “How much outreach comes back to the DNC varies from campaign to campaign.”

The Sanders and O’Malley campaigns declined comment.

The DNC’s handling of Elleithee’s departure has become another cause for concern, both among committee staffers and at the Clinton headquarters. A month after he left and six weeks before the first Republican primary debate, the Democrats’ official party structure has neither a communications director nor a deputy communications director. A listing posted by the DNC for the job required only “at least two years of experience.”

A main flash point between the campaigns and the DNC has been the debate schedule arrangements. Clinton’s camp wanted fewer than the six eventually announced. The other candidates wanted more — and even stopping at six is viewed as too much of a concession to her — leading the Sanders campaign to write a letter of protest. The DNC isn’t budging, saying that six “will give plenty of opportunity for the candidates to be seen side-by-side.”

Aware that the Clinton campaign is already portrayed as dictating terms to the DNC, Baker raised the concern about making ballot access in primary states a criteria for getting on stage: If Sanders were locked out because of potential trouble qualifying in New Hampshire (given that he’s not a registered Democrat), Baker was worried this would be seen as Clinton keeping him out.

But taking so active a role in the DNC now — or installing someone with clear allegiance to Clinton — could be dangerous for the campaign, which is trying to avoid creating the impression it views itself as inevitable. It would also create an appearance problem for the DNC, which must stay neutral through the end of the primaries.

“The Democratic National Committee runs an impartial primary process,” said DNC press secretary Holly Shulman. “We have a process for managing each campaign’s request — technology, communications, research or otherwise — and we welcome all of the campaigns’ engagement with the DNC.”

Gabriel Debenedetti and Annie Karni contributed to this report.