Coordination rules govern the line between independent expenditures (protected speech with no donor caps) and coordinated expenditures (treated as in-kind contributions subject to contribution limits). Under FEC rules, communication is coordinated if it's paid for by someone other than the candidate, made in cooperation with that candidate, and meets a "content" and "conduct" test.
The agency's three-prong test is narrow in practice. A super PAC and a candidate can share consultants, use the same public footage, and publicly broadcast strategic plans without legally "coordinating," as long as they don't share private campaign data inside a 120-day window.
Critics call the rules a sham — they allow what most voters would consider coordination while preserving the legal fiction of independence that justifies unlimited contributions to super PACs. The FEC, deadlocked along party lines for years, rarely brings coordination cases.
The whole legal premise of unlimited super PAC contributions is that they're "independent" of candidates. If coordination rules collapse, the system collapses with them.
People often think a candidate appearing at a super PAC event is illegal coordination. In practice, the FEC's content + conduct tests are so narrow that even shared consultants usually qualify as "independent."
The whole legal premise of unlimited super PAC contributions is that they're "independent" of candidates. If coordination rules collapse, the system collapses with them.
People often think a candidate appearing at a super PAC event is illegal coordination. In practice, the FEC's content + conduct tests are so narrow that even shared consultants usually qualify as "independent."