Back in the spring, some of Joe Biden’s advisors considered launching a Super PAC—which can raise and spend unlimited sums—called Unite the Country, to help plug the funding gap they feared his presidential campaign might face. Initial fundraising numbers dissuaded them; instead, Biden joined the progressive chorus denouncing such outside support.
Subsequent funding woes have led to a full reversal. Boston’s own Larry Rasky, a long-time aide and friend to the Vice President, filed Unite the Country paperwork with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) this week. Biden himself seemed to reverse his earlier opposition.
There’s nothing much unusual or surprising about all that. The more interesting question is: how many other candidates in the Democratic field will get similar help on the road to Iowa and New Hampshire?
We have entered the Super PAC primary.
It’s uncharted territory for Democrats, who have not been in a nomination fight like this since the 2010 Citizens United ruling and subsequent court decisions spawned the contemporary Super PAC landscape. Barack Obama was unchallenged for the 2012 nomination, an in 2016 both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had funding aplenty for their early-contest advertising needs.
Sanders, who ended September with $33.7 million in his campaign account, might be able to match the $16 million he spent on television advertising for Iowa and New Hampshire during the 2016 election cycle—which was a million less than Clinton poured in.
And billionaire Tom Steyer, acting as his own Super PAC, has spent some $40 million already on TV ads, and millions more on digital.
Only two other Democrats appear to have any hope of playing at that 2016 level. Elizabeth Warren had more than $25 million on hand, according to her third quarter FEC report, although her investment in a huge staff has some close to the campaign saying that a massive TV ad campaign is unlikely. Pete Buttigieg, with $23 million, figures to spend plenty.
Nobody else has that kind of dough at the ready. Kamala Harris ended the third quarter with a little more than $10 million; Biden was next with nine million; Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Beto O’Rourke each had less than five million.
They could all use what many Republican candidates had in 2016: outside spending by Super PACs.
Super PACs supporting those GOP candidates spent more than $30 million on TV ads in Iowa, and even more in New Hampshire—more than double the amount spent by the campaigns themselves.
Rich friends in the wings?
Super PACs, like other outside committees, are forbidden from coordinating with the campaigns themselves. That also means that candidates cannot prevent such groups from forming and spending on their behalf.
That means that candidates can rail against the influence of outside money, as progressive voters demand, while outside money goes ahead and influences for them.
For the most part, Democrats will try to maintain plenty of distance from any such efforts. But they probably needn’t worry too much. Biden does not seem to have taken much of a public hit from his trusted friends opening a Super PAC, despite criticism from Sanders and others. That’s largely in keeping with recent electoral precedent, which sees plenty of bemoaning Super PACs, but little penalty for them at the polls.
In fact, several Republican presidential candidates in 2016 openly treated their Super PACs as part of the campaign plan from the beginning. Jeb Bush openly fundraised for the Right To Rise committee—and essentially treated it as his TV ad budget. The Bush campaign itself spent no money on Iowa TV ads, leaving it to Right To Rise to spend nearly $15 million.
Only two Democratic presidential candidates game-planned similarly this year—john Hickenlooper and Jay Inslee—and both are already out of the race.
The remaining candidates will need to wait and see whether help will come.
If it does, it might be at the 11th hour. Frequently, so-called “pop-up PACs” form in the final weeks of a campaign—late enough to avoid revealing donors until after the election. Bostonians may recall that tactic from the 2013 mayoral race, when late ads supporting Marty Walsh were only later found to have been funded by the National Education Association.
O’Rourke was the beneficiary of a pop-up PAC in his nearly-successful 2018 Senate campaign, against Ted Cruz in Texas. Texas Forever, one of several Super PACs that helped O’Rourke in that race, spent $2 million at the end of the campaign; after the election, its FEC reports revealed that the money came primarily from the party-backed Senate Majority PAC.
Super PACs are capable of such quick, stealthy strikes, without a lengthy fundraising and staffing ramp-up period, when they are funded by a very small cadre of big-spending individuals or organizations—or just one—and intend to spend that money on simple ad buys.
So who has such friends in gilded places, possibly plotting a late spending blitz?
Booker is a likely suspect. In fact, he already has a supportive Super PAC: Dream United, formed in late 2018 by philanthropist couple Steve Phillips and Susan Sandler.
Booker denounced the effort after entering the race this year. But Phillips had indicated that he and some other wealthy friends intended to carry on despite those protestations from the candidate.
Whether they have is uncertain; Super PACs have not had to file FEC reports since mid-year, at which point Dream United had a little over $1 million stashed.
Harris has plenty of wealthy benefactors in the wings as well—there had been talk of her advisors establishing a Super PAC early this year, similar to the Biden camp discussions.
Klobuchar, some close observers say, may be best poised for big-money help not from wealthy individuals but labor organizations—who have so far mostly stayed on the sidelines for this clash among strong union allies, but have plenty of funds to put to work quickly via Super PACs. Klobuchar received very little outside financial help in her recent re-election—and didn’t need any, in a lopsided victory. But the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, National Education Association, Carpenters & Joiners, and others spent hundreds of thousands to help elect her back in 2006, and could step in for her if they see Biden faltering.
O’Rourke, as noted, had plenty of Super PAC help just last year, and easily could again. Buttigieg’s hefty fundraising so far from the wealthy liberal elite suggests that he too is a good candidate for Super PAC help.
Steve Bullock might be expected to benefit most from Super PACs: he has national big-money and business contacts—much like the two other governors in the 2020 race, Hickenlooper and Inslee. Bullock could also really use some help boosting his public profile. But, he’s placed his crusade against dark money in politics front-and-center in his campaign. In case anyone missed the message, Bullock released a statement denouncing the Biden Super PAC, playing off its name: “You don’t ‘Unite the Country’ by buying an election.”
Even Warren, who has gone to every extreme in swearing off PAC money and other big-money help, stands a good chance of receiving Super PAC support from liberals who desire her election more than they fear her disapproval.
After all, despite all her denunciations, Warren has not attempted to initiate a “People’s Pledge” style pact to discourage outside spending on the candidates’ behalf. That’s a door left open that anyone with a bunch of money can charge right through.
