The driving force behind Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ presidential bid is not his official campaign but rather a well-funded outside group that is handling crucial day-to-day activities — powered by a cadre of seasoned political advisers and a deep cash trove.
DeSantis’ super political action committee (PAC), Never Back Down, has carried out much of the work typically performed by a campaign, including devising his game plan in Iowa as well as deciding where he goes and who he meets, according to donors and allies. Days before the first Republican debate (Aug. 23), a firm run by operatives advising the super PAC posted hundreds of pages of strategy advice for DeSantis online.
While traversing Iowa to meet with voters, the Florida governor routinely rides a bus emblazoned with “Never Back Down” and staffed by super PAC aides as his primary means of transport. Never Back Down staff — not campaign workers — organize and run many of his press events. Last week, Never Back Down announced a list of chairs for each of the state’s 99 counties “to help organize and mobilize” voters.
Political lawyers interviewed by Bloomberg News say that DeSantis’ reliance on the super PAC for such activities is not only unprecedented, it could run afoul of rules that require outside groups to act independently of candidates and refrain from coordinating directly with them.
“What they’re doing is offloading what is traditionally campaign activity to the super PAC,” said Larry Noble, a former general counsel with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), referring to the DeSantis campaign. “To claim that it’s done without coordination is unbelievable.”
The super PAC’s top advisers include political veteran Jeff Roe, who engineered Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s defeat of Donald Trump in the 2016 Iowa caucuses. Among the documents posted this week by Roe’s firm, Axiom Strategies, were pages of advice on how to attack rivals in next week’s Republican primary debate, including former New Jersey governor Chris Christie and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, as well as analyses of how other Republican candidates are likely to attack DeSantis.
Those materials, first reported by the New York Times, were taken down. Yet their publication highlighted the ways super PACs can get around the ban on direct communication. Super PACs cannot talk with campaigns about strategy and research, but they are free to publish information online or to direct others to do so.
Meanwhile, the campaign, which has been stacked with Tallahassee-based aides, recently replaced manager Generra Peck with Jeff Uthmeier, the governor’s chief of staff in Tallahassee, who has never run a presidential campaign. Other staff changes signal that Never Back Down’s influence over the campaign will continue to grow. Former top super PAC official David Polyansky — from Roe’s Axiom Strategies — was recently named deputy campaign manager.
Andrew Romeo, a DeSantis campaign spokesman, said the campaign was abiding by the rules. “We will continue to follow the law as we maximize our resources by accepting special guest invitations to bring Ron DeSantis’ message to reverse the decline of this country and lead our Great American Comeback to as many voters as possible.”
Super PAC spokeswoman Jess Szymanski cited the group’s door-knocking, event-hosting and participation in Republican events. “Never Back Down will continue doing everything we can within the law to help elect Governor Ron DeSantis our next president,” she said in a statement.
DeSantis’ dependence on his super PAC is the latest twist in campaign finance in the 13 years since a Supreme Court decision opened the door to unlimited fundraising and spending by outside groups.
Campaigns are limited to accepting up to US$6,600 per donor, and contributions must be evenly split between primary and general election campaigns. By contrast, super PACs have been allowed under the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling to raise unlimited amounts of money that can be used for advertising, organizing voters, building donor lists and other activities.
Federal law bars campaigns and super PACs from coordinating their activities, though some limited contact is permissible. Candidates may attend fundraisers held by the committees or policy-focused nonprofits, but they cannot ask individuals to give more than US$5,000.
It is not so much that Never Back Down is doing things that other super PACs have never done, a person familiar with its operations said. Rather, it is the scale of the operation, made possible by the US$131 million bankroll it began with, the person said.
Never Back Down reported having almost US$96.8 million in cash on hand at the end of June, compared with US$12.2 million in the campaign’s bank account, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
Despite having more cash than any other candidate, DeSantis has struggled to gain ground in the polls. His operation has almost twice as much money on hand as frontrunner Trump, even as the former president continues to grow his lead. Trump is 39.9 percentage points ahead of DeSantis — the only other candidate polling in double digits — according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls.
Yet the bounds of the super PAC coordination rules have generally not been tested this much, Noble said. Because direct communication is against the rules, he said that DeSantis is effectively ceding authority over his campaign operations to people who do not answer to him.
“I don’t know of any serious presidential campaign that does that,” Noble said.
Campaigns and super PACs have for years found ways to get around restrictions on coordination. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina’s 2016 campaign for president, for example, posted her events on a Google calendar accessible to anyone, including her super PAC. It is still online.
The FEC has investigated dozens of complaints that candidates of both parties have illegally coordinated with super PACs, but has yet to issue any penalties since super PACs came into existence following the 2010 Supreme Court ruling. The commission, which is divided evenly between three Republicans and three Democrats, has deadlocked on votes, resulting in no action.
Rosalyn Cooperman, a political science professor at the University of Mary Washington, said there is limited appetite for challenging the growing role of super PACs.
“Enforcement of the rules is going to be very permissive, because it’s one of those things where candidates want the freedom to be able to make those kinds of judgment calls,” she said.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS