the 2024 presidential primary cycle saw more boundaries tested in the world of campaign spending & operations than ever before. a combined $688M was spent by the candidates who appeared at the first republican presidential primary debate & their respective super PACs.
an astonishing $1 out of every $3 of that $688M is attributed to Ron DeSantis for President & Never Back Down. the latter, DeSantis’ outside group, shelled out $138M—more than any other super PAC, including Trump’s at present—to effectively run the Florida governor’s field program. Never Back Down footed the bill for everything from bus tours to events to canvassing in a daring new test to push the limits of campaign finance & the role that super PACs play. whether the DeSantis strategy was successful or not is a discussion for another day, but this bifurcation of efforts, which campaigns have historically funded, between the candidate & their allied group has illustrated a new frontier in electoral politics.
this brings us to the FEC’s Advisory Opinion 2024-01 (issued March 20, 2024), which addressed the role of outside organizations in a campaign’s field efforts specifically:
“the Commission concludes that the canvassing literature & scripts are not public communications, & as a result are not coordinated communications under Commission regulations. further, the costs to produce & distribute the canvassing literature & scripts are not coordinated expenditures. finally, the Commission concludes that if [an outside group] provides the data that arises from its paid canvass to a federal candidate or party committee at less than its fair market value, it would be an in-kind contribution.”
despite seemingly having gone under the radar, this ruling has essentially opened the door to collaboration on canvassing between campaigns & outside entities. in its Advisory Opinion, the FEC has stated that canvassing materials are not considered public communications & are therefore not subject to the ever-ominous non-coordination rules, creating countless collaborative opportunities for campaigns & PACs supporting them. for example, a federal super PAC could work with a top-targeted congressional campaign to execute a field program to target pre-selected audiences with messaging that aligns with the campaign’s objectives. subsequent exchange of data is of course subject to market value rules for in-kind contributions, which should be left to the discretion of each entity’s legal counsel.
so how should campaigns be revising their strategies in light of this guidance? the first piece is budget. with a strategic relationship in place, campaigns now no longer need to budget for any expenditures that would fall into the “canvassing materials” bucket, which not only includes traditional canvassing costs, but could also include the emerging use of digital touchpoints, such as peer to peer text messaging, to complement existing programs or even supplement where there are holes (think rural communities). this doesn’t mean that campaigns should forget about canvassing & field programs all together, but just the opposite; campaigns should be defining their messages & vote goals in order to create an ecosystem where an outside organization can execute & deliver valuable data back to get the campaign that much closer to victory.
the landscape of campaigns & elections has undoubtedly shifted, but only time will tell if campaigns, operatives & organizations are able to effectively leverage this FEC’s guidance for a more impactful election cycle. one thing is certain: the role of super PACs appears to be expanding, not shrinking.