Dem
51
GOP
49
Tom Moore, writing for TalkingPointsMemo, has an interesting (and concerning) piece about campaign finance law, and the sizable loophole that was indicated (but only partly exploited) by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) during his failed presidential campaign.
Really, it's fairly simple. To be considered a "candidate" for office, under federal law, a person must either raise or spend $5,000, or allow someone else to do it on their behalf. If a person does not cross that threshold, then they are not a candidate, and they don't have to file reports with the FEC.
Meanwhile, to be considered a "super PAC," under federal law, a committee has to advocate for the election or defeat of a "clearly identified candidate." As everyone knows, super PACs can raise unlimited amounts of money without the caps that exist on contributions to individuals. However, if the PAC is not advocating for or against a candidate, then they are not required to file reports with the FEC either.
Presumably, you can see where this is headed. If a candidate were to do the all-in version of what DeSantis did this cycle, they could spend all their time traveling around, giving speeches, kissing babies, eating local foods at county fairs, castrating hogs, etc., without wasting any time on fundraising. As long as they did not personally bring in or spend $5,000+, they would not officially be "a candidate." That, in turn would mean that their supporting Super PAC or PACs could pay all the bills and run the show, and yet would not have to report to the FEC, as long as the Super PAC or PACs were careful not to campaign against any of their candidate's opponents. In this scenario, a wannabe president or senator or member of the House could be bankrolled entirely by one wealthy backer (the government of Saudi Arabia?) and could spend every second campaigning, and nobody would know.
Clearly, this is a loophole that should be closed immediately. But given the difficulties of getting anything through Congress, much less campaign finance reform, not to mention the challenges in not running afoul of Citizens United, we think that a loophole closure is unlikely. (Z)