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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS