When a Super PAC Acts Like a Campaign

By doing the sort of advance work traditionally left to campaign staff, CARLY For America is redefining what makes a super PAC “independent.”

Getty Images
Emma Roller
Add to Briefcase
Emma Roller
Sept. 10, 2015, 6:59 a.m.

On a re­cent swing through Iowa, Carly Fior­ina kept a rig­or­ous cam­paign sched­ule. At six cam­paign stops over the course of two days and 300 miles, Fior­ina spoke in front of Re­pub­lic­an crowds at three col­leges, an ice cream par­lor, a vine­yard, and an out­door tiki bar. And at each event, staffers work­ing for a su­per PAC that sup­ports Fior­ina’s can­did­acy were one step ahead of the cam­paign.

Tra­di­tion­ally, a polit­ic­al cam­paign will have ded­ic­ated staffers on the ground to “ad­vance” the can­did­ate, ar­riv­ing at an event space be­fore the can­did­ate shows up, mak­ing sure the room is dec­or­ated with cam­paign swag, and set­ting up a table where at­tendees can sign up for the all-im­port­ant email list.

At the events in Iowa, Fior­ina’s cam­paign had no vis­ible ad­vance pres­ence. There was, however, a well-or­gan­ized ad­vance team await­ing Fior­ina’s cam­paign at every stop, cour­tesy of a su­per PAC called Con­ser­vat­ive, Au­then­t­ic, Re­spons­ive Lead­er­ship For You and For Amer­ica—bet­ter known as CARLY For Amer­ica.

At a typ­ic­al Fior­ina cam­paign stop, a CARLY For Amer­ica staffer was sta­tioned at a table out­side of the event space to sign up at­tendees for the su­per PAC’s email list. An­oth­er staffer handed out CARLY For Amer­ica stick­ers to at­tendees as they ar­rived. When Fior­ina and her staff entered the event, they were usu­ally met by a room covered in red “CARLY” signs and tables covered in pro-Fior­ina lit­er­at­ure, all pro­duced by CARLY For Amer­ica.

If a reg­u­lar voter at­ten­ded every cam­paign stop and handed out fly­ers telling someone to vote for that can­did­ate, the cost of print­ing would count as an in-kind ex­pendit­ure. Both Fior­ina’s cam­paign and CARLY For Amer­ica main­tain that the work be­ing done by the su­per PAC does not con­sti­tute an in-kind con­tri­bu­tion to the cam­paign, but an in­de­pend­ent ex­pendit­ure. But elec­tion-law ex­perts say that, in ef­fect, the su­per PAC is provid­ing a ser­vice by staff­ing the events.

The Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion defines an in-kind con­tri­bu­tion as “goods or ser­vices offered free or at less than the usu­al charge.” That could mean any­thing from a com­puter, to of­fice fur­niture, to mer­chand­ise, to ca­ter­ing at an event—pretty much any good or ser­vice giv­en to the cam­paign that has value. It is il­leg­al for someone to give a cam­paign goods or ser­vices that ex­ceed $2,700—the lim­it for dona­tions to fed­er­al can­did­ates—and PACs that ac­cept money from cor­por­a­tions or labor uni­ons can­not provide any in-kind con­tri­bu­tions to the cam­paign.

This dif­fer­en­ti­ation between in-kind and in­de­pend­ent ex­pendit­ures can lead to some con­fus­ing op­tics. It was Fior­ina’s birth­day on Sunday, and at a cam­paign stop in New Hamp­shire she was presen­ted with a birth­day cake. The cake was dec­or­ated not with her cam­paign’s logo, but the su­per PAC’s logo. At a Labor Day parade the next day, a video sent out by Fior­ina’s of­fi­cial Twit­ter ac­count shows the can­did­ate walk­ing down the street, sur­roun­ded by sup­port­ers in CARLY T-shirts, wav­ing CARLY signs. There was no vis­ible cam­paign swag from Fior­ina’s pres­id­en­tial cam­paign, so a cas­u­al ob­serv­er could reas­on­ably as­sume that the paraphernalia was com­ing from the cam­paign it­self.

Sarah Is­gur Flores, Fior­ina’s deputy cam­paign man­ager, ac­know­ledged that the cam­paign does not do as much mer­chand­ising at events as CARLY For Amer­ica does, but said the su­per PAC’s ad­vance work does not con­sti­tute an in-kind con­tri­bu­tion be­cause it is not co­ordin­at­ing with the cam­paign.

“The is­sue with su­per PACs is nev­er that they would make an in-kind con­tri­bu­tion. It would be co­ordin­a­tion,” Flores said. “It’s the co­ordin­a­tion that’s the is­sue.”

Larry Noble, who served as the FEC’s gen­er­al coun­sel from 1987 to 2000 and now works at the Cam­paign Leg­al Cen­ter, dis­agrees with that as­sess­ment. Noble said that the su­per PAC’s ad­vance work wouldn’t be a prob­lem if Fior­ina’s cam­paign were per­form­ing sim­il­ar func­tions at Fior­ina’s events, but that it ap­pears as if the su­per PAC is ful­filling a lar­ger role with­in the cam­paign by “provid­ing the in­fra­struc­ture for the event.

“That’s the type of thing that the cam­paign would have to pay for, but the su­per PAC is do­ing,” Noble said.

Flores, who worked for CARLY For Amer­ica be­fore join­ing Fior­ina’s cam­paign, said the cam­paign tries to ad­vance as many events as it can, but ad­ded that the sup­port they ob­serve from CARLY For Amer­ica staffers is “fant­ast­ic.

“It de­pends on the event, but yes, we have staff that nor­mally goes to things ahead of time,” Flores said. “We’ll con­tin­ue do­ing our thing, but we’re thrilled that they’re do­ing theirs.”

Un­like in 2012, when su­per PACs mostly spent money on tele­vi­sion ad­vert­ising, su­per PACs are start­ing to get much more per­son­al with their spend­ing this cycle. Leslie Shedd, CARLY For Amer­ica’s spokes­wo­man, said the su­per PAC’s staff finds out about Fior­ina’s cam­paign events through pub­lic list­ings, then sets up a table to sign up at­tendees for its email list and dis­trib­ute swag.

“What you’re see­ing now is the mod­ern cam­paign,” Shedd said. “This is how cam­paigns are evolving and mov­ing, and I think that we just kind of latched onto that.”

Shedd said the su­per PAC de­cided the best way it could help is with on-the-ground work, which she said is “one of the most ex­pens­ive and time-con­sum­ing as­pects of any cam­paign.

“For a can­did­ate like Carly Fior­ina, who is a polit­ic­al out­sider, who does not have the polit­ic­al base that a lot of these oth­er kind of ca­reer politi­cians in the race have had, what we de­cided as an out­side group that the best thing that we could help to provide is ground-game sup­port,” Shedd said.

When asked to cla­ri­fy wheth­er or not the su­per PAC provides those ser­vices so that the Fior­ina cam­paign does not have to worry about them, Shedd balked.

“No, I would def­in­itely nev­er say that be­cause that would be co­ordin­at­ing,” Shedd said. “What I have told you is that we have as­sessed the situ­ation and we have de­term­ined that one of the ways that we can help is by help­ing with the ground game.”

The FEC and the De­part­ment of Justice are still map­ping out the bound­ar­ies of what makes an in-kind con­tri­bu­tion il­leg­al. So far, there has been little pre­ced­ent set, but there have been a few cases that shed light on how the gov­ern­ment thinks about the is­sue. In 2012, after the Re­pub­lic­an su­per PAC Amer­ic­an Cross­roads used foot­age cre­ated by Sen. Rob Port­man’s reelec­tion com­mit­tee in its own tele­vi­sion ad, the FEC ruled in fa­vor of Cross­roads, and said re­pub­lish­ing the cam­paign’s foot­age did not con­sti­tute an in-kind con­tri­bu­tion. This past June, a Vir­gin­ia man was sen­tenced to two years in pris­on for spend­ing $325,000 worth of su­per PAC funds in co­ordin­a­tion with a cam­paign com­mit­tee for a can­did­ate in Vir­gin­ia’s 11th Con­gres­sion­al Dis­trict.

CARLY For Amer­ica is not the only su­per PAC to push the defin­i­tion of in­de­pend­ent ex­pendit­ures this cycle. Three su­per PACs sup­port­ing former Texas Gov. Rick Perry have been prop­ping up Perry’s can­did­acy while his own cam­paign has had to stop pay­ing staffers in key primary states. And Cor­rect the Re­cord, an op­pos­i­tion-re­search firm led by prom­in­ent al­lies of Hil­lary Clin­ton, is ar­gu­ably tak­ing work off Clin­ton staffers’ hands by dig­ging up dirt on Clin­ton’s op­pon­ents.

Bob Bier­sack, a seni­or fel­low at the Cen­ter for Re­spons­ive Polit­ics, says the fact that all these su­per PACs are provid­ing ser­vices that so dir­ectly sup­port one spe­cif­ic cam­paign puts the lie to the idea that they are act­ing in­de­pend­ently.

“This pan­to­mime that we’re do­ing on so many levels now, pre­tend­ing that these or­gan­iz­a­tions are autonom­ous and in­de­pend­ent when com­mon sense de­fies that no­tion … is just an­oth­er ex­ample of the some­what ri­dicu­lous lengths that people will go to to main­tain the il­lu­sion of in­de­pend­ence,” Bier­sack said. “They really need it to be an il­lu­sion.”

Noble says this case is not so much about one cam­paign as it is an ex­ample of the FEC’s fail­ure to en­force spe­cif­ic stand­ards.

“This shows what hap­pens when the FEC doesn’t en­force the rules, and people just keep push­ing the lines to the point where, if what they’re do­ing is ac­cep­ted, it’s leg­al, there are no lines between su­per PACs and cam­paigns any­more,” Noble said. “Why even have a cam­paign com­mit­tee any­more?”

What We're Following See More »
Byrd Rule Could Trip Up Health Legislation
10 hours ago

"Even if House Republicans manage to get enough members of their party on board with the latest version of their health care bill, they will face another battle in the Senate: whether the bill complies with the chamber’s arcane ... Byrd rule, which stipulates all provisions in a reconciliation bill must affect federal spending and revenues in a way that is not merely incidental." Democrats should have the advantage in that fight, "unless the Senate pulls another 'nuclear option.'”

Senate Votes To Fund Government
1 days ago
House Passes Spending Bill
1 days ago

The House has passed a one-week spending bill that will avert a government shutdown which was set to begin at midnight. Lawmakers now have an extra week to come to a longer agreement which is expected to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year in September. The legislation now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass before President Trump signs it.

Puerto Rico Another Sticking Point in Budget Talks
2 days ago

President Trump’s portrayal of an effort to funnel more Medicaid dollars to Puerto Rico as a "bailout" is complicating negotiations over a continuing resolution on the budget. "House Democrats are now requiring such assistance as a condition for supporting the continuing resolution," a position that the GOP leadership is amenable to. "But Mr. Trump’s apparent skepticism aligns him with conservative House Republicans inclined to view its request as a bailout, leaving the deal a narrow path to passage in Congress."

Democrats Threaten Spending Bill Over Obamacare
2 days ago

Democrats in the House are threatening to shut down the government if Republicans expedite a vote on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, said Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer Thursday. Lawmakers have introduced a one-week spending bill to give themselves an extra week to reach a long-term funding deal, which seemed poised to pass easily. However, the White House is pressuring House Republicans to take a vote on their Obamacare replacement Friday to give Trump a legislative victory, though it is still not clear that they have the necessary votes to pass the health care bill. This could go down to the wire.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.