This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key

Re: Options for an exploratory or future campaign committee to obtain a direct mail or email list

From:robbymook@gmail.com To: lutrecht@up-law.com CC: cheryl.mills@gmail.com, eric@up-law.com, john.podesta@gmail.com, Huma@clintonemail.com Date: 2014-12-18 00:45 Subject: Re: Options for an exploratory or future campaign committee to obtain a direct mail or email list

Very helpful--thanks for clarifying. After reading this, I'm even more attracted to the idea of RFH sending an opt in email. Kicking off with annoying complaints about coordination could give Priorities a rocky start too. And hamper ability to be aggressive there...where big dollars are at stake. On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Lyn Utrecht <lutrecht@up-law.com> wrote: > > Hi Robby - our thought in the second option is that RFH, as it shuts > down, would give its lists to another SuperPAC, and then the campaign could > do a list exchange with that new SuperPAC that will continue to operate. > This would cost the campaign nothing. > > The campaign could alternatively buy the names, but in that case you might > as well buy them from RFH instead of transferring them elsewhere. > > We share many of your thoughts about the list and agree with your logic. > In fact, there is a real question as to how many of these names are in fact > new to HRC. RFH rented her existing 08 list several times. We suspect > there could be substantial overlap between the lists she already has and > the RFH lists. Of course, their list may have more updated data--addresses > and other appended data. > > Re the pricing, the $.35 to $1 per thousand would be the range for paying > only for updated data such as mailing addresses and email addresses for > names she already has on her lists. So she is not buying the names only > updated data. You are right that this would be very inexpensive. But we > won't know the number of names in this category until a vendor does the > match and analysis. > > We did not give you a price for buying the RFH lists because it will > depend on how many of the names she already has. It will also vary > depending on the type of list. For reference, the following is a breakdown > of what the existing HRC list has been purchased and rented for. Our goal > in these transactions was a different goal than now--the prior goal was to > maximize the payments. RFH's lists would not have to be valued at these > same rates. > _________________ > For reference only: > *COST TO BUY LIST:* > When HCFP sold names to FOH in January 2009, these are the prices that > were used per name: > > $2.62 per name for Donors (online and mail) $1-$99 > $2.00 per name for Online Activist > $1.00 per name for Online Supporter > > The 3rd party valuation for the total sale in 2009 was approx $2.55 > million for about 1.56 million names. > > *COST TO RENT LIST:* > Here are base prices FOH currently charges for list rental. There are > also associated processing fees which are not included below. > > $200/1000 names for email donors > $100/1000 names for email activists > $75-80/1000 names for direct mail donors > __________________ > > If you wanted to go the purchase route, a vendor would have to do a match > and analysis (approx $1-2k), then we would take that and reduce the cost > based on a variety of factors > as we noted in our Options summary. This would need to be done to get a > good figure for purchase. > > We agree that emails from RFH to their lists pushing people to the > campaign (and uncoordinated as you suggest), would be both free and likely > successful. > > You probably saw the press stories last weekend about the fact that there > is already a complaint filed nearly a year ago about RFH's rental of the > Friends of Hillary list. It won't be the last. > > Let us know if you want to discuss any of this. > > Lyn and Eric > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 17, 2014, at 7:31 PM, "Robert Mook" <robbymook@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is very helpful, thank you. List acquisition is always so > stimulating. > > One clarification question: In your second option in the document, is the > idea that RFH would transfer the list to another super pac, which would in > turn to sell it to the campaign? > > Big picture, I'm approaching this from the following position: does the > benefit of a campaign getting the list outweigh the cost in dollars, > compliance headaches, and scrutiny (actual FEC investigation or just > handwringing in the press...especially early). Of course, there's also the > question of whether the campaign will get most of these names itself if > it's running a strong acquisition program. Does that logic make sense? In > this regard, the best solution seems to be that RFH simply email their list > multiple times pushing people to opt in to the campaign's list. I assume > this would be both free and fully legal as long as it is never requested by > the campaign or it's agents? > And am I understanding your math correctly, that if they have 3.5 million > names that it would likely cost in the neighborhood of $3,500 to purchase > the entire list ($1 per 1000)? If so, that's a bargain. > > Thanks again! > > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> John/Robby/Huma >> >> See below and attached Attorney-client communication for your information >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Lyn Utrecht <lutrecht@up-law.com> >> Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:28 PM >> Subject: Fwd: Options for an exploratory or future campaign committee to >> obtain a direct mail or email list >> To: Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> >> Cc: Eric Kleinfeld <eric@up-law.com> >> >> Hi Cheryl - here are some options for getting the lists. A few key points: >> >> We can't give you a number on cost of purchase without doing a match of >> the two lists. This would require getting both lists to a vendor. Our >> vendor estimates the cost at $1-2,000. We believe Ready for could pay that >> cost to determine the value of its list. We will also look further into the >> pricing of appended and updated info. >> >> The discussions about this should probably take place between lawyers for >> the entities who can do so as an effort to make sure that there is >> agreement re the law. >> >> There should not be a request or direction on behalf of HRC as to how R4H >> disposes of its list. If a decision is made to purchase it, a request may >> be made for that. >> >> Please let us know if you have questions. >> Lyn and Eric >> >> >> >>