Recent FEC Guidance Provides New Opportunity for Coordinated Canvassing

Door-to-door canvassing is a time-honored tradition embraced by political campaigns and sales strategists alike, offering a personal touch that resonates with the public. Whether it’s political candidates or, at one time, vacuum cleaner salesmen knocking on your door, these face-to-face interactions are invaluable for education, listening, and fostering civic engagement. Door-to-door canvassing, whether conducted by 501(c)(4)s, political committees, or candidates for public office, is an essential part of any campaign, often offering the added benefit of being fairly cost-effective compared to other voter outreach methods. 

What’s changed recently? The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) weighed in with Advisory Opinion 2024-01, which impacts how door-to-door canvassing programs are operated at the federal level. Texas Majority PAC (TMP), a nonfederal political committee, requested the AO. The FEC determined that door-to-door canvassing costs (including literature, scripts, and distribution) do not qualify as “general public political advertising” and do not rise to the level of coordinated communications or expenses. This is the case even if the organization is privy to nonpublic federal candidate plans and an express advocacy message is used. Express advocacy is a communication that urges the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. For example, “Reelect Bob for Mayor” or “Vote for Mary Smith for Senate!” 

Why is this so important? In many circumstances, if an activity is coordinated with a federal candidate’s campaign, a political party, or their agents, the related costs are treated as an in-kind contribution to the candidate’s campaign. In-kind contributions to federal candidates are subject to the same limits and source restrictions as monetary contributions.  Individual donors and PACs are limited in the amount they may give, while corporations, including 501(c)(4)s and unions, are prohibited from contributing to a federal candidate.  

But now, because door-to-door canvassing does not meet the definition of a “public communication,” the costs are not subject to these limits. This means that a 501(c)(4), non-federal committee, or another type of political committee may be able to coordinate with federal candidates and their campaigns, and/or a political party on door-to-door canvassing without violating these contribution limits and restrictions. 

How could an organization conduct this type of canvass? 

The AO creates a “safe harbor” for organizations to follow. This means so long as an organization structures its door-to-door canvassing activities in a materially identical manner as described in the AO, the costs are not in-kind contributions to the candidate. Even when organizations are privy to a federal candidate’s nonpublic strategies, plans, and needs when planning the activity, they may be able to expend funds in excess of the contribution limits and outside the source restrictions that would ordinarily apply. To take advantage of the safe harbor, the following requirements must be met:  

• An organization, or its vendor, recruits, employs, trains, and directs the canvassers  
• Either the vendor or the organization designs and produces the canvassing materials, including scripts and literature (i.e. door hangers) 
• Only the organization, and not its outside vendor, may determine the audience, or what doors to knock on for canvassing activity 
• The canvass does not distribute the candidates’ own materials or literature 
• Any data or information recorded or gathered from the activity may not be shared or given to the candidate or party for less than fair market value. The data resulting from the canvass is an asset and has value. It would be considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate to give them that information and, consequently, subject to the source restrictions and contribution limits previously discussed.  

Does this AO apply to other types of communications such as phone banks and advertising? No. The FEC distinguishes door-to-door canvassing from other types of communications. The AO states that door-to-door canvassing is a “a traditional grassroots activity fundamentally different from … mass media … it involves individual people talking face-to-face with voters.” The AO does not apply to voter outreach activities that do not qualify as door-to-door canvassing. As such, activities such as phone banking, direct mail, broadcast, or satellite communications are still subject to coordination regulations and contribution limits.  

What if door-to-door canvassing is conducted independently?  

The FEC’s AO does not apply if an organization plans a door-to-door canvass to support federal candidates, but is not privy to nonpublic federal candidates’ plans (in other words, its canvass is conducted independently), so there is no change in the campaign finance obligations related to such independent canvasses. FEC regulations still apply, including IE disclaimers and reporting requirements. Therefore, it is critical that organizations consult with counsel before undertaking such activity.   

How does this AO impact the conduct of independent expenditure (IE) activities? 

Since the AO applies only to coordinated canvasses, if an organization also plans to conduct activities, including independent expenditures, that need to be planned and executed without coordination with a candidate or political party, it will need to ensure that any coordinated door-to-door canvassing activities are “firewalled” from those independent activities. Firewalls are put in place to prevent the flow of information from employees and vendors working on coordinated activities to those planning and engaging in independent expenditures. More information about setting up and operating under a “firewall” can be found here. It is essential that any organization that conducts political activity establishes and utilizes a firewall policy.   

What about our work related to state-level (as opposed to federal) candidates? 

The FEC’s AO is applicable only to federal election activity. It does not apply to any state campaigns conducted by 501(c)(4)s or other types of entities. Communications advocating for the election or defeat of state or local candidates must continue to comply with relevant state and local campaign finance regulations, which often prohibit this type of coordination with candidates and campaigns.   

How is door-to-door canvassing reported? Are there required FEC disclaimers?   

Depending on the type of organization that conducts door-to-door canvassing alongside federal candidates or campaigns, there are different ways it would be reported to the FEC. If, like TMP, the organization is not registered with the FEC, none of the costs would be treated as coordinated expenditures and, consequently, would not be reportable to the FEC. This would be the case even if the activity was conducted with information from the candidate or party. In addition, the federal “paid for by” disclaimer on canvassing materials would not be required. But, there could be applicable state or local campaign finance and reporting requirements if the communications refer to state or local candidates. 

If a political committee that is registered with the FEC conducts door-to-door canvassing activity under the AO safe harbor, it would report the expenditures associated with the activity on its regularly scheduled campaign finance reports as an operating expenditure. It would also be required to use the appropriate “coordinated” disclaimer on the materials.   

Next steps and implementation 

This AO creates a legal safe harbor for organizations to conduct door-to-door communications in cooperation with a federal candidate or political party so long as the activities are materially identical to those described in the AO. It’s a fresh approach to a time-honored tool in the advocacy toolbox for many tax-exempt groups. When creating the campaign plan, an organization should look at the AO carefully and determine if a coordinated canvass conducted in the same manner as that described in the AO would fit within its budget, staffing, and other programs. It’s crucial to consider how these activities may impact the independence of other communications and any potential reporting obligations. Particularly since the AO raises some unanswered questions, it’s highly recommended to seek guidance from your organization’s legal counsel to ensure compliance with the AO and other relevant campaign finance regulations. 

Alliance for Justice Action Campaign builds the strength of progressive organizations and movements.  We develop resources on the legal framework for social welfare advocacy organizations and political campaigns. Our materials explain the legal framework that 501(c)(4) organizations must operate within and practical tips for organizational staff. This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.