The Campaign Is the Product

Leadership PACs, scam PACs, and the architecture of legal grift

Overview and Introduction

American campaign finance law watches money coming into politics with a microscope and money going out with a shrug. Every donor who gives more than $200 is identified and reported. On the spending side, there is essentially one rule: campaign funds cannot be used for personal expenses. This essay is about everything that rule does not prohibit, and how leadership PACs have largely sidestepped the law's central spending restriction.

The rule applies only to a candidate's authorized campaign committee. Nearly every member of Congress also operates a second account called a leadership PAC, originally intended to raise money for and contribute to other candidates and party committees. The Federal Election Commission has concluded that the personal-use prohibition does not apply to these accounts, and the spending reflects that. Today, less than half of leadership PAC expenditures go to supporting other candidates or party committees. Instead, disclosure filings show that members of both parties spent on luxury hotels, exclusive golf clubs, resorts, fine dining, and other expenses. Even official campaign committees, where the personal-use rule does apply, have found approved workarounds. Members have charged their own campaigns interest on personal loans, paid family members millions in consulting fees, and kept campaign accounts open and spending for years after leaving office. Regulators have approved each of these practices.

At presidential scale, the same vehicles move serious money. One leadership PAC has paid more than $60 million in legal bills for its founder and his allies, lawfully, funded largely by small donors who believed they were funding a political fight. A newer arrangement surrounds officials still in office: networks of nonprofits, committees, and trademarked brands, run by allies, that hold everything a future campaign needs while the official governs. Both parties have built these. At the bottom of the market sit outright scam PACs, which raise millions invoking candidates and causes and deliver almost none of it. Operators go to prison only when they lie explicitly. The legal operations achieve similar results with better paperwork.

The conclusion is uncomfortable but follows from the record. Running for president can be a sound business plan even when losing is certain, because the donor list, the brand, and the leftover accounts all pay out regardless. None of this is a broken system. It is a corrupt system working precisely as the people who wrote its rules intended, and they are the only ones with the power to change it.

Every American political campaign tells its donors the same story. Your contribution funds the fight. The money buys ads, organizers, yard signs, and get-out-the-vote operations. Victory is the product, and the donation is the purchase price.

For a substantial and growing share of the money moving through American politics, that story is false. Not false in the sense of a lie told by one dishonest politician, but false in the structural sense: the legal architecture of campaign finance has evolved into a system in which the campaign itself is the product, the donor is the customer, and the political outcome is incidental to the revenue model. Sometimes, winning is no longer the driving factor in running for political office. Making money is. The clearest case is the leadership PAC and its darker cousins, the entities that orbit every serious presidential campaign like remoras around a shark.

This is not a story about one party or one politician. The machinery serves incumbents and operators of both parties with perfect impartiality, which is precisely why neither party has any intention of dismantling it.

The asymmetry at the heart of the law

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and its successors built an elaborate regulatory apparatus around the inflow of political money. Contribution limits, source prohibitions, disclosure requirements, and reporting deadlines: the intake side of the pipe is monitored in exhaustive detail. Anyone who has filed an FEC report knows the level of granularity involved. Every donor over two hundred dollars is identified, along with an employer and address. Right to privacy for the donor goes into the ash bin. Why is who we vote for a protected right to privacy, but who we donate to is not?

The outflow side is a different world. For a candidate’s authorized campaign committee, the law imposes essentially one meaningful spending restriction: the prohibition on “personal use,” defined as spending campaign funds on any obligation that would exist irrespective of the campaign or the duties of federal office. A mortgage payment fails the test. A country club membership fails the test. Nearly everything else passes.

And even that single restriction, it turns out, applies to only one of the several political accounts a candidate may control.

Leadership PACs: The Second Campaign Account

A leadership PAC is a political committee established and controlled by a candidate or officeholder but legally separate from the authorized campaign committee. When these vehicles emerged in the late 1970s and proliferated through the 1980s and 1990s, their stated purpose was to allow ambitious members of Congress to raise money and distribute it to colleagues, building the alliances that lead to committee chairmanships and leadership posts. Congress did not even define the term in statute until 2008.

The personal use prohibition, the one meaningful restriction on the spending side, has never been applied to leadership PACs. For years, the Federal Election Commission deadlocked three to three on whether the statute reached them. Then, in 2023, in an enforcement matter involving a former congressman’s leadership PAC, a majority of commissioners concluded that the personal use rules simply do not apply. What had long been a gray zone of non-enforcement became formal Commission precedent. The agency charged with policing campaign finance formally acknowledged that its principal spending restriction did not extend to one of the principal political accounts controlled by members of Congress.

Campaign Legal Center and Issue One, watchdog organizations that generally favor stronger campaign finance regulation but are widely respected for careful documentation, found that between 2013 and 2018, contributions to other candidates and party committees, the original justification for leadership PACs, accounted for only about 45 percent of spending.

The majority of funds went elsewhere. During a single six-month period in 2018, leadership PACs spent more than $124,000 at the Greenbrier resort, more than $160,000 at St. Regis properties, more than $53,000 at Ritz-Carlton hotels, $46,000 at a single Washington steakhouse, and nearly $20,000 at Disney properties. The largest individual spender was John Thune, whose leadership PAC purportedly spent more than $403,000 at the Greenbrier Sporting Club alone.

Other examples include:

• Sen. John Thune: $403,000 at the Greenbrier Sporting Club.

• Rep. Pat Tiberi: $64,000 on Broadway tickets.

• Rep. Tom Graves: $34,000 at Sea Island Resort.

• Rep. Michael McCaul: $21,000 in country club dues.

• Sen. Mitch McConnell: $4,000 for limousine service in Rome.

These were not Republicans behaving badly while Democrats abstained, or the reverse. The watchdog reports make clear that officeholders from both parties have used leadership PACs as lifestyle subsidies. Fifty-eight former members of Congress from both parties urged the FEC to close the loophole. The FEC itself has recommended, on five separate occasions since 2009 and again in 2023, that Congress extend the personal use prohibition to all political committees. Congress has declined every time.

The only people with the authority to close the loophole are the people who benefit from it. The benefits are concentrated, immediate, and personal. The costs are spread across millions of small donors, each of whom loses fifty or a hundred dollars of the political purpose they thought they were funding, and none of whom will ever notice the loss individually. James Buchanan won a Nobel Prize for explaining that politicians respond to incentives just like everyone else. Leadership PACs may be the clearest real-world demonstration of that principle in American public life.

The Authorized Campaign Loopholes

The authorized campaign committee, the one political account actually covered by the personal use ban, has its own catalog of approved workarounds. The congressional record supplies the price list.

A member can lend money to a campaign and charge interest. Grace Napolitano loaned her campaign $150,000 in 1998 at interest rates as high as 18 percent, and her donors ultimately paid her $221,780 in interest while the principal declined by only $64,727. In 1999, the FEC ruled that the arrangement complied with the law. Donors delivered the congresswoman a 147 percent return on a loan she made to herself, one contribution at a time.

A campaign can also put the family on the payroll. FEC rules permit payments to a candidate’s relatives so long as they represent fair market value for bona fide services, and both definitions have proved remarkably elastic.

Maxine Waters’ daughter has received more than $1.2 million from her mother’s campaign since 2004 for operating a slate mailer business used by virtually no other federal politician. Earlier, the Los Angeles Times found that the campaign had paid more than $1 million to family members over the preceding eight years.

During the 2020 election cycle, Ilhan Omar’s campaign paid roughly $2.9 million to her husband’s consulting firm before ending the arrangement amid public criticism.

A 2012 report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington identified 82 members of Congress directing money to relatives through their offices, campaign committees, or PACs: 42 Republicans and 40 Democrats, the statistical equivalent of a coin flip.

A campaign can even outlive the career it was created to finance. A 2018 investigation by the Tampa Bay Times and WTSP analyzed more than one million campaign expenditures and identified roughly 100 zombie campaign committees still spending money long after the candidate’s political life had ended. Twenty remained active for more than a decade. Eight continued spending after the candidate had died, paying for dinners, cell phone bills, and rent.

One former congressman used his dormant campaign account to finance dinners on the Palm Beach social circuit. After the investigation, the FEC sent letters to about 50 committees, including those of Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann, asking why the accounts remained open. Two former members took the concept one step further by converting leftover campaign committees into multicandidate PACs and continuing to spend the remaining funds there: the retirement version of the leadership PAC.

Rep. Grace Napolitano collected more than $220,000 in donor-funded interest payments through an arrangement the FEC expressly approved. Rep. Maxine Waters' family payroll likewise operated under rules the agency permits. The law does not distinguish by the amount extracted. It distinguishes by the mechanism.

At the congressional level, leadership PAC spending means resort weekends and steakhouse tabs. At the presidential level, the same legal vehicle operates on an entirely different scale. The 2020 to 2024 cycle produced the defining case study.

Save America, the leadership PAC controlled by Donald Trump, was registered with the FEC on November 9, 2020, two days after the election was called. It became the primary fundraising vehicle of his post-presidency, fueled largely by small dollar donations solicited around election integrity themes, with retirees accounting for more than 60 percent of contributors at one point. Because it was organized as a leadership PAC rather than a campaign committee, it operated outside the personal use ban.

The PAC spent more than $60 million on legal fees for the principal and his allies. In the first half of 2023 alone, $21.6 million of its roughly $30 million in total spending went to legal bills, and nine of its ten largest vendors were law firms. Other disbursements included $650,000 for official portraits, six figures to a personal stylist, and seven-figure grants to nonprofit institutes staffed by former administration officials. Campaign finance lawyers across the political spectrum questioned the arrangement while acknowledging that it was likely permissible because the FEC had already concluded that the personal use ban does not apply to leadership PACs.

Partisans naturally read this as an indictment of one man. That reading misses the larger point. The problem is structural. The legal architecture created a vehicle that allows a politician to convert small dollar political donations into personal legal defense, image management, and patronage for a professional entourage, all disclosed and all lawful under current Commission precedent. Given the existence of that vehicle, its eventual use at maximum scale was inevitable. If one politician had not taken it this far, another eventually would. The next one probably will, from whichever party next produces a candidate with a devoted small dollar base and substantial personal expenses.

The donors believed they were financing political action. Much of what they financed instead was the operating budget of a personal political enterprise. That gap between what donors believe they are buying and what their money actually funds is the essence of a grift, and it required no lawbreaking.

When a political committee pays the legal bills of aides and associates, it changes incentives. The witness no longer bears the financial cost of his own legal defense. Instead, that cost is assumed by an organization controlled by, or acting on behalf of, the very person whose interests are at stake. Financial dependence creates loyalty even when no one asks for it.

No instruction has to be given. The dependency does the work. Incentive structures shape behavior more reliably than orders ever could. The same logic extends well beyond campaign finance. It is the same incentive structure that appears throughout government, from pharmaceutical regulation to public health policy.

The Democratic Model

Donald Trump demonstrated how a leadership PAC could become the center of a post-presidential political enterprise. The Democratic Party took a different approach. Rather than concentrating power in a leadership PAC, it built a network around the official campaign, joint fundraising committees, and one of the largest super PACs in American history.

By March 2024, Biden for President, the Biden Victory Fund, and the Biden Action Fund had collectively raised approximately $365 million, spent about $138 million, transferred roughly $79 million to the Democratic National Committee and state parties, and retained a substantial cash reserve. These committees formed the official fundraising backbone of President Biden’s reelection effort.

Outside the campaign sat Future Forward, an independent super PAC that became the financial heavyweight of the Democratic operation. Unlike Trump’s Save America leadership PAC, Future Forward was legally independent of the campaign and therefore permitted to raise unlimited contributions.

By the end of the 2024 election cycle, Future Forward had raised almost a billion dollars, making it the largest single-candidate super PAC in American history. It spent roughly $450 million on advertising, while an affiliated 501(c)(4) nonprofit handled more than $600 million in additional political activity without publicly disclosing its donors.

The organization was led by Chauncey McLean, a veteran of the Obama political operation and founder of Future Forward, with longtime Democratic strategist Anita Dunn serving as one of its principal architects. Dunn is one of the Democratic Party's most influential political operatives, having served as a senior adviser to both Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden before moving directly to Future Forward after leaving the White House. Her career has long drawn criticism for moving repeatedly between senior government positions, presidential campaigns, and the Washington consulting firm SKDK, whose corporate clients often had business before the federal government, making her emblematic of the revolving door between political power and influence consulting.

Polling strategy was directed by David Shor, one of the Democratic Party's most prominent data scientists and architects of modern microtargeting. Financial backing came from billionaire donors, including **Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, James Simons, and Reed Hastings, helping Future Forward become the largest single-candidate super PAC in American history.

When President Biden withdrew from the race, the infrastructure scarcely missed a beat. Vice President Kamala Harris inherited the official campaign committee, approximately $240 million already under campaign control, the Biden Victory Fund, the Biden Action Fund, and the full support of Future Forward. Within 24 hours, her campaign announced another $81 million in contributions, describing it as the largest single-day presidential fundraising in American history. The candidate changed. The political enterprise did not.

The contrast with Trump’s operation is structural rather than partisan. Trump’s post-presidential organization centered on a leadership PAC. Biden’s and Harris’s centered on an official campaign, joint fundraising committees, and an extraordinarily well-funded super PAC. Different legal vehicles. The same underlying principle: modern presidential politics is no longer financed by a single campaign committee, but by an ecosystem of organizations designed to preserve money, staff, donor lists, and political influence long after any individual campaign begins or ends.

The Warehoused Campaign

The leadership PAC stores political money between elections. Increasingly, politicians also store the next presidential campaign itself: its brand, donor lists, organizations, staff, and fundraising machinery, all maintained until the principal is free to run.

The legal architecture makes this outcome almost inevitable. The Hatch Act bars covered federal employees, including cabinet secretaries, from becoming candidates for partisan office, and the Office of Special Counsel has interpreted that prohibition to reach preliminary campaign activity: any conduct that can reasonably be construed as seeking support for a future candidacy.

If Secretary of State Marco Rubio or Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ultimately decide to run for president, they cannot simply build campaign organizations while remaining in office. At some point, they would have to leave their posts before becoming candidates.

The law, however, creates an obvious alternative. While the principal remains in office, nothing prevents allies from maintaining the campaign’s political assets outside the government. Donor lists can be preserved. Leadership PACs can continue raising and spending money. Super PACs remain active. Nonprofit organizations can continue advocacy, list-building, branding, and grassroots organizing. Consultants stay employed. Digital infrastructure remains intact. The prospective candidate need only to resign and step into a political apparatus that has been maintained throughout his tenure in office, once they formally file the necessary paperwork to run for office.

The law prohibits the principal from openly assembling a presidential campaign while permitting others to assemble one around him. The predictable result is a campaign held in escrow. The candidate waits. The campaign does not.

At the same time, Senate-confirmed presidential appointees are among the least restricted federal employees under the Hatch Act. They may engage in partisan political activity, even during working hours, so long as they do not use their official title, government resources, or solicit political contributions. The law prevents the principal from assembling a campaign while permitting allies to assemble one around him. The predictable result is a campaign held in escrow: allies maintain the brand, donor lists, committees, and political infrastructure while the officeholder governs. A resignation letter is the only document separating the warehouse from the launch. Note also that the President and Vice President are largely exempt from the Hatch Act.

Both parties have built versions of this structure. Organizing for Action, the 501(c)(4) created from Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, spent his second term promoting the sitting president’s agenda using his campaign’s email list and organizing apparatus, financed by donors whose identities were not publicly disclosed. Republicans at the time described it as an unprecedented merger of governing and campaigning. Mike Pence established the Great America Committee in 2017, becoming the first sitting vice president to operate a leadership PAC, while raising millions of dollars in office. Scott Pruitt maintained a legal defense fund while serving as EPA administrator.

The most fully developed version now surrounds the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy applied to trademark the Make America Healthy Again slogan in 2024, disclosed in ethics filings that he had earned $100,000 from the brand, and transferred the trademark application to an ally’s LLC in December 2024, weeks before his confirmation. Around that trademark now stands an entire political ecosystem: a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization he co-founded before taking office, managed by veterans of his presidential campaign and advertising itself as the continuation of the campaign’s digital and grassroots operation; a policy institute; a super PAC renamed from his presidential super PAC and held in reserve; an educational nonprofit that purchased a Super Bowl advertisement promoting the administration’s message; and a holding company involving a family member (his son), registered at the same law firm address as the LLC controlling the trademark. The secretary appears at the network’s summits and campaigns for the administration’s agenda in battleground districts, activities permitted under the Hatch Act for officials of his rank.

Speculation about a 2028 presidential campaign has circulated openly. Kennedy has publicly denied any intention of running. Whether he ultimately does is beside the point. The political infrastructure already exists. It requires no declaration of candidacy. It requires only that the assets be maintained.

Some supporters have discussed creating a MAHA political party. That would introduce a novel feature into American politics: a political party whose name and identity are protected intellectual property controlled by a private LLC. Historically, political parties have belonged, in the civic sense, to their members. A trademarked party would instead depend on whoever controls the mark. Its candidates, committees, and state organizations could operate only with the owner’s permission, under whatever terms the owner establishes. Donations to such a party would simultaneously support a political movement and reinforce the value of a privately controlled brand.

None of this is an indictment of the movement itself or of its supporters, many of whom are responding to institutional failures that this publication has documented for years. It is another illustration of the same structural problem that runs through this essay. The architecture predates this movement, has been used by both parties, and will outlive whoever occupies it next. A legal regime that prohibits an officeholder from assembling a campaign while allowing allies to assemble one around him should not be surprised when every ambitious politician acquires a warehouse. The only variables are whose name appears on the filings and which party occupies the office.

Scam PACs

If the leadership PAC is grift wearing a suit, the scam PAC is grift in its purest form. The political cause is little more than a costume.

A scam PAC is a political committee that raises money by invoking a candidate or sympathetic cause, then routes nearly all of it to fundraising vendors and consultants controlled by the operators themselves. The mechanics are remarkably consistent. Robocalls and direct mail target elderly donors with urgent appeals: support the president, back the police, help autistic children, defend the border. The money arrives. The committee then reports spending 85 to 95 percent of its receipts on “fundraising,” “consulting,” and “compliance,” with payments flowing to limited liability companies that share an address, an incorporation date, and often even a home address with the PAC’s own treasurer. The circle closes. Almost nothing reaches the candidate or cause.

• William and Robert Tierney, two brothers from Arizona, operated a network of nine scam PACs between 2014 and 2017 that invoked law enforcement, autism awareness, the pro-life movement, and other sympathetic causes. They collected $23 million, forwarded less than one percent to the advertised causes, routed most of the money through shell companies and telemarketing firms they controlled, and pocketed millions themselves. William Tierney ultimately pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and served a federal prison sentence.

• Kelley Rogers, a Maryland political consultant, operated the Conservative Majority Fund, Conservative StrikeForce, and Tea Party Majority Fund. Beginning in 2012, the Conservative Majority Fund alone raised nearly $10 million while contributing just $48,400 to actual candidates and political committees. Rogers pleaded guilty to wire fraud after admitting that donor solicitations falsely promised support for candidates, election integrity efforts, and veterans while the money instead flowed back to him, his associates, and additional fundraising.

• Another operator, Thomas Tunstall, raised more than half a million dollars in 2016 by invoking candidates from both parties, spent less than a penny of every dollar on politics, and used donor money for travel, liquor, room service, and other personal expenses. He was sentenced to three years in federal prison.

During the 2022 election cycle, OpenSecrets identified 86 committees fitting the scam PAC profile.

One thing separates the prosecuted cases from the legal ones, and it is not the flow of money. In both, donor dollars come in, vendors and insiders are paid, and little reaches the advertised political purpose. The difference is provable fraud. The scam PAC operator goes to prison because he explicitly promises that donations will support a candidate or cause when they will not.

Leadership PACs and consultant-heavy campaigns can produce a remarkably similar economic result while remaining within the law because their solicitations are carefully drafted and the legal vehicles are permissive enough that no specific promise is violated. The criminal cases define the boundary by contrast. The line is not drawn at taking donors’ money for purposes they never intended. It is drawn at being careless enough to promise something more specific.

The FEC has repeatedly stated that it lacks statutory authority to police fraudulent political solicitations and has asked Congress to provide it. Congress has declined. Instead, the worst cases are prosecuted by the Department of Justice under federal wire fraud statutes, usually only after the conduct becomes egregious enough to attract criminal attention.

Meanwhile, the agency charged with overseeing campaign finance was deliberately designed with an even number of commissioners divided equally between the two parties, making deadlock the expected outcome whenever the political interests of both parties align. This is more than regulatory failure. It is regulatory design. A referee who cannot blow the whistle is not a bug in the system. He is one of its features.

The Political Ecosystem

The leadership PAC rarely operates alone. Around every modern presidential candidate now orbits an entire political ecosystem, with each organization occupying its own regulatory niche: the authorized campaign committee, the leadership PAC, one or more super PACs, joint fundraising committees that divide a single donation among multiple accounts according to formulas few donors ever read, 501(c)(4) advocacy organizations that need not disclose their donors at all, and allied institutes that employ the candidate’s people between election cycles. Money moves among these entities through transfers, refunds, shared vendors, and affiliated organizations that are individually disclosed but collectively difficult to follow. A donation solicited for one purpose can ultimately finance another after passing through organizations governed by entirely different rules.

Layered on top is the consulting economy. FEC reports disclose payments only to the vendor of record, not to subcontractors, so a campaign can lawfully report hundreds of millions of dollars flowing to a single LLC while the ultimate distribution of those funds remains invisible. Political media consultants have traditionally been compensated as a percentage of advertising purchases, meaning the people advising a campaign how much advertising to buy are often paid in proportion to the amount spent. The donor list itself, the email and text-message database built by every serious campaign, is another durable asset. It can be rented, licensed, and repeatedly solicited for years after the last ballot is counted. For a certain class of candidacy, the donor list becomes the real product, and the campaign becomes the mechanism for building it.

Viewed this way, a presidential campaign is more than a contest for public office. It is also the creation of a durable political enterprise that can outlive the election itself. Winning is only one possible return on investment. A campaign can produce a nationally recognized brand, a valuable donor list, advocacy organizations, consulting contracts, speaking fees, book deals, and a permanent fundraising operation. For some candidates, especially those with little prospect of victory, those assets may ultimately prove more valuable than the office they sought.

A presidential run, even a hopeless one, especially a hopeless one, is a rational business venture.

Why Losing Pays

The naive model of a presidential campaign says the expected value of running equals the probability of winning multiplied by the value of the presidency. By that arithmetic, a candidate polling at one percent is engaged in an expensive act of vanity. The model is wrong because it counts only one asset, that is winning, on the balance sheet. A modern presidential campaign produces several others, and none requires victory.

The first is the donor list. A national campaign is the most efficient list-building instrument in American politics. A strong debate performance or viral interview can generate hundreds of thousands of email addresses and small-dollar donors in a matter of days. Those names become a durable revenue-producing asset. They can be rented, licensed where permitted, and repeatedly solicited for years. They seed every subsequent enterprise: the next campaign, the advocacy nonprofit, the podcast, the newsletter, the book launch, now -even merchandise and fees on trademarked items and phrases. Certain perennial candidates are best understood as operating the same list-building business every four years, with the presidential primary serving as the marketing campaign.

The second is the brand. The title “former presidential candidate” permanently increases speaking fees, book advances, media contracts, and board appointments. Mike Huckabee built a national television career after his presidential campaigns. Marianne Williamson transformed long-shot presidential bids into bestselling books, speaking tours, and a vastly larger audience. Campaigns also create the audience that later buys those books. Bulk purchases by campaigns and allied committees have repeatedly helped political books reach bestseller lists, while the royalties belong to the author, not the donors who financed the publicity.

The third asset is the residual political apparatus. When the campaign ends, the infrastructure often survives. Leftover funds can remain in campaign committees, migrate into leadership PACs where permitted, or be supplemented by super PACs, nonprofits, and advocacy organizations that continue operating between election cycles. Staff disperse but often reunite. The donor list continues producing revenue. The campaign may close. The political enterprise rarely does.

The fourth asset is political positioning. Even unsuccessful presidential campaigns purchase valuable political assets: consideration for the vice presidency, Cabinet appointments, influence over the party platform, leverage within the donor network, and an early claim on the next open cycle. George H. W. Bush, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Lyndon Johnson all sought the presidency before reaching the vice presidency, while Pete Buttigieg, Tom Vilsack, and others translated unsuccessful presidential campaigns into Cabinet posts.

The fifth asset belongs less to the candidate than to the entourage. Consultants, fundraisers, pollsters, media buyers, direct-mail firms, and digital strategists are paid whether the campaign wins or loses. In many cases, their compensation increases with the amount of money raised and spent rather than the number of delegates won. The people advising a marginal candidate whether to run are often the same people whose firms profit if the answer is yes. Few participants in that conversation have a financial incentive to recommend staying out.

Against these potential rewards, the candidate risks remarkably little personal capital. Donors finance the venture. When campaigns collapse, unpaid vendors often recover only pennies on the dollar, while the enduring assets remain with the candidate: the donor list, the national brand, the political organization, and the relationships built along the way. The gains are largely private. Much of the financial risk belongs to someone else.

That arithmetic explains why crowded presidential primary fields have become the norm. Campaigns that make little sense as electoral propositions can make perfect sense as business propositions. The system does not merely tolerate the long-shot candidacy. It often rewards it. Every campaign announcement from a candidate polling within the margin of error should therefore be read in two ways: as a bid for the presidency, and as the launch of a valuable political enterprise.

What the Donor Actually Buys

None of this means political giving is foolish or that everyone who works in politics is corrupt. Most campaign staff work brutal hours for modest pay because they genuinely believe their candidate matters.

This essay is not about character. It is about architecture. Systems that reward extraction inevitably produce extractors. The names change. The incentives do not. Consultants from both parties attend the same conferences, hire the same vendors, and defend the same loopholes because those loopholes are the shared property of the professional political class, perhaps the only truly bipartisan institution in Washington.

The small donor responding to an urgent text message deserves to know where that money can actually go once it leaves his bank account. Some of it will advance the cause he intended to support. Some will pay the consultant who wrote the text and the vendor who delivered it. Some may ultimately settle into a leadership PAC, a nonprofit, or another political vehicle operating under entirely different rules. It may finance a resort weekend, a legal defense, a portrait, a media campaign, or the next political enterprise.

Campaign finance law promised to clean up political money.

Instead, it built a system that regulates in extraordinary detail how money enters politics. The consequence being that the donor has no right to financial privacy. But the politicians and their political cohorts have remarkably broad discretion over financial opacity, as there are few limits on how the money is spent.

What emerges is not an accidental loophole. It is a predictable consequence of the rules themselves.

---

---

Sources

Federal Election Commission, “Petition for Rulemaking on Personal Use of Leadership PAC Funds,” FEC Record, September 2018. https://www.fec.gov/updates/petition-rulemaking-personal-use-leadership-pac-funds/

Campaign Legal Center, “FEC Waves the White Flag on Yet Another Issue: Leadership PAC Abuse,” March 2023. https://campaignlegal.org/update/fec-waves-white-flag-yet-another-issue-leadership-pac-abuse

Campaign Legal Center, “CLC, Issue One and Former Lawmakers Urge FEC to Stop Politicians’ Abuse of Leadership PACs,” November 2018. https://campaignlegal.org/press-releases/clc-issue-one-and-former-lawmakers-urge-fec-stop-politicians-abuse-leadership-pacs

Issue One, “More Than 50 Former Members of Congress Urge the FEC to Close Personal Use Loophole for Leadership PACs,” November 2021. https://www.issueone.org/more-than-50-former-members-of-congress-urge-the-fec-to-close-personal-use-loophole-for-leadership-pacs/

Howard Center for Investigative Journalism, “Theme Parks, Private Planes and Paris: The Leadership PAC Loophole,” Scripps News, May 2024. https://www.scrippsnews.com/politics/theme-parks-private-planes-and-paris-the-leadership-pac-loophole

LAist, “How Politicians Make Money: Loan Their Own Campaigns Money with Interest,” reporting Bloomberg News findings on the Napolitano campaign loan. https://laist.com/news/how-politicians-make-money-loan-the

Fox News, “Maxine Waters Paid Daughter $192,000 in Campaign Funds During 2022 Cycle, Filings Show,” February 2023. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/maxine-waters-paid-daughter-192000-campaign-funds-2022-cycle-filings-show

OpenSecrets, “These Incumbents’ Campaigns Are Paying Big Wages to Family Members,” June 2020. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/06/campaigns-paying-family-members/

Tampa Bay Times and 10News WTSP, “Zombie Campaigns,” January 2018. https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2018/investigations/zombie-campaigns/spending-millions-after-office/

Tampa Bay Times, “FEC to Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann and 48 More Zombie Campaigns: Why Are You Still Here?,” May 2019. https://www.tampabay.com/investigations/2019/05/30/fec-to-mitt-romney-michele-bachmann-and-48-more-zombie-campaigns-why-are-you-still-here/

Campaign Legal Center, “Zombie Campaign Redux: Former Members of Congress Continue to Use Leftover Campaign Cash as Personal Slush Funds,” March 2019. https://campaignlegal.org/update/zombie-campaign-redux-former-members-congress-continue-use-leftover-campaign-cash-personal

ABC News, “Trump PAC Spent Millions on Legal Bills This Year as His Charges Mount,” August 2023. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-pac-spent-40m-legal-bills-year-charges/story?id=101853565

CNN, “Legal Fees: Trump Leadership PAC’s Soaring Bills Outstrip What It Raised Last Month,” March 2024. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/20/politics/legal-bills-trump/index.html

Forbes, “Trump’s Save America PAC Has Paid Nearly $50 Million to Ex-President’s Lawyers Since First Indictment,” March 2024. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/03/21/trump-lawyers-paid-nearly-50-million-from-political-pac-since-first-indictment/

Wikipedia, “Save America,” accessed July 2026, aggregating New York Times, CBS News, Fox News, and FEC filings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Save_America

OpenSecrets, “How ‘Scam PACs’ Line Their Pockets by Deceiving Political Donors,” August 2023. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/08/how-scam-pacs-line-their-pockets-by-deceiving-political-donors/

Brennan Center for Justice, “Beware of Scam PACs in This Crowded Presidential Field,” March 2019. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/beware-scam-pacs-crowded-presidential-field

AARP, “Fake PACs Cheat Campaign Donations from Older Americans,” December 2019. https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/scam-pacs/

Zhao Li, “Lemons in the Political Marketplace: A Big-Data Approach to Detect ‘Scam PACs,’” Center for the Study of Democratic Politics, Princeton University. https://csdp.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf2376/files/media/zhao_li_lemons_in_the_political_marketplace.pdf

ABA Journal, “Federal Government Warns of an Increase in ‘Scam PACs’ as Election Nears,” June 2024. https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/federal-government-warns-of-an-increase-in-scam-pacs-as-election-nears

U.S. Office of Special Counsel, “Hatch Act Frequently Asked Questions.” https://www.osc.gov/services/hatch-act/faq/

U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, “Political Activities and the Hatch Act,” 2025 guidance. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/SOL/files/2025%20-%20Political%20Activities%20Guidance.pdf

Washington Post, “RFK Jr. Sought to Trademark MAHA for Vaccine Marketing, Transferred to Ally,” January 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/01/29/rfk-del-bigtree-make-america-healthy-again-trademark/

Axios, “Scoop: Move by RFK Jr.’s PAC Fuels Speculation About 2028 Campaign,” July 16, 2025. https://www.axios.com/2025/07/16/rfk-jr-pac-2028-speculation

The Hill, “RFK Jr.: ‘I Am Not Running for President in 2028,’” August 2025. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5454652-kennedy-jr-denies-2028-run/

Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, “MAHA: A Who’s Who of Groups That Bear the ‘Make America Healthy Again’ Slogan in Their Names,” November 2025. https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/maha-a-whos-who-of-groups-that-bear-the-make-america-healthy-again-slogan-in-their-names/

Boston Globe, “Meet Tony Lyons, the Man Building RFK Jr.’s MAHA Empire,” March 2026. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/03/25/nation/tony-lyons-maha-rfk-jr/

The Hill, “RFK Jr. Promotes MAHA in Key House Battlegrounds Ahead of Midterms,” June 2026. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5931217-kennedy-white-house-midterms/

InfluenceWatch, “MAHA Action,” accessed July 2026. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/maha-action/

RWM/JGM