On Wednesday, Chris Jankowski, the Chief Executive Officer of the Super PAC, Never Back Down, which has backed Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' bid to be the Republican Party's Presidential Nominee, resigned, stating to Reuters that "Never Back Down's main goal and sole focus has been to elect Governor Ron DeSantis as President. Given the current environment, it has become untenable for me to deliver on the shared goal and that goes far beyond a difference of strategic opinion."
Super PACs are not allowed to participate in presidential campaigning, despite this, DeSantis and Never Back Down have pushed the limits on these rules, with the Super PAC taking over expenses generally covered by the campaign itself. With more than $80 million of funding, Never Back Down, held a massive door-knocking program, hosted DeSantis events, and even covered the cost of some of his private plane rides. These actions seem to fly blatantly in the face of rules against Super PACs campaign participation, a rule designed to prevent the rich from having a major financial influence on campaigning, while instead, this and many other concentrations of economic power are able to focus their power directly for that goal.
Despite almost breaking this law, it seems a further attempt to push the rules is the reason for the Super PAC splintering. This law says that Presidential Campaigns cannot communicate campaign strategy with Never Back Down, resulting in some strategic disagreements. In the past few weeks, several of DeSantis' closest allies have complained about the Super PAC airing ads attacking rival Nikki Haley, believing it reflected poorly upon DeSantis as well, which many speculate is the reason for Jankowski's resignation.
Never Back Down's COO, Kristin Davidson will take over as CEO, in what borders on open strategic collaboration between DeSantis and massive political donors. As we discussed in class, the line between Donors and Presidential Campaigns, while clear in that they should not mix, is constantly pushed by these groups and nearly every Campaign since Watergate, to the point where although separate on paper, they Never Back Down and the DeSantis campaign seem suspiciously coordinated in their efforts towards his nomination. An effect that highlights the ineffectiveness of this law, and indicates a similar rewriting to what we saw after Watergate is needed if the government is going to enforce the campaign rules they indicate are important.
- Gabe Anagnoson
Sources:
5 comments:
I agree that a rewriting of laws in needed, and I think this event should be a signal to the government to do so. If nothing is changed, then it might be a slippery slope in coming elections, where boundaries will just be pushed further and further. The original point of the laws banning super PACs from coordinating with political campaigns was to help ensure a fair election as well as keep voters informed on campaign spending. If campaigns like DeSantis' continue to go unchecked, I believe it will eventually lead to the kind of corrupt system the laws were originally meant to prevent.
I think that protecting and enforcing these laws in place to prevent corrupt elite campaigning or entanglement is important, although I think groups like Never Back Down will always find loopholes. With enough money, people will continue to find new and creative ways to get their messages across and voice their support for candidates. The law in place that says Presidential Campaigns cannot communicate campaign strategy with PAC's, seems relatively fragile and hard to enforce, as I'm sure they could coordinate ways to discuss campaign strategies. Perhaps laws should get more strict and specific, but I also think attention should be given to those enforcing and checking these group's integrity and finances.
I think that maintaining laws in regards to political elections is incredibly important as they form the backbone of a fair and transparent democratic process. The rules and regulations that are set in place should safeguard against undue influence, and ensure that elections aren't only reflecting the will of the people but are also
creating a fair environment for all candidates. I agree that we need a rewriting of laws but we especially need more consequences when people try to gain an unfair advantage.
This idea of Never Back Down’s contributed finances going directly to DeSantis’ campaign relates to the question that we talked about in class last week: “is our political campaign financing system corrupt?” This article is an explicit “yes” to that question. Money ALWAYS leads to corruption, and corruption almost always stems from money. However, I agree with Ava in that PACs will always find ways around laws regarding funding candidates—as long as politics is a thing, there is no sure-fire method to regulate how much and what type of money is going into an individual’s campaign. One solution, though it doesn’t solve everything, is to more strictly manage the money going in and out of campaigns, as well as making this information crystal clear to the public. Like many other political problems, the key to this challenge is educating the public. The average voter needs to be informed about the types of funding the campaigns they support are receiving. They need to be aware of the heavy, heavy influence that PACs and Super PACs can have on certain campaigns. If this problem can’t be solved, there’s little hope that PACs like Never Back Down will be kept from borderline illegal activity in the future.
I think the Super PACs, political campaigns, and elite donors in Governor Ron DeSantis' presidential ambitions blur the boundaries set by campaign finance regulations. While Super PACs can amass substantial donations, having abundant funds doesn't guarantee campaign success. Incumbents with strong reputations may not require extensive support and donations, as money alone doesn't always shape campaigns or effectively convey messages. Campaigns should aim for sufficient funding instead of focusing solely on amassing more money. Utilizing Super PACs in a presidential campaign can create an uneven playing field for other contenders. This practice appears unfair, potentially skewing the balance of influence in the electoral process.
Post a Comment