There’s a pattern in campaigns that is easy to miss if you only look at outcomes. Candidates don’t just run on their values; they run toward whoever can fund them.

The recent reporting on David Hogg’s PAC, Leaders We Deserve, offers a clear example of how that dynamic plays out.

According to Axios, the PAC has left multiple endorsed campaigns frustrated after signaling support that never fully materialized. As the article puts it, campaigns were “fuming” after losses, saying the group “dangled hopes of financial commitments that never materialized.” 

The pattern isn’t limited to just one candidate. Irene Shin’s campaign anticipated around $400,000 in support that ultimately did not come through. Robert Peters’ campaign shares a similar story: initial excitement, expectations of strong backing, and then a reevaluation that led the PAC to withdraw, concluding there was “no viable path to victory.”

From the PAC’s perspective, that decision makes sense. As they argue, it's not sensible to spend a lot on candidates who are likely to lose regardless of how much is invested. However, that logic introduces a different issue. 

If candidates understand that support depends on being perceived as viable, their incentives shift. They are no longer just presenting what they believe but trying to align with what funders want to see. That’s where Robert Peters becomes an interesting example.

Reports show that his campaign took steps to adjust its stance, including engaging with AIPAC in ways that suggested a move toward wider acceptance. Later, his position shifted again as the political climate changed. Regardless of his intentions, the outcome is what voters see constantly: positions that evolve. Not because of increased learning or understanding, but because priorities shift, not just by the candidates, but by their funders. 

And when support is later withdrawn, the frustration often redirects toward the PAC and the system, rather than inward.

But the structure itself promotes that behavior. When viability depends on outside support, candidates are compelled to adapt. Sometimes that results in strategy or inconsistency, or both.

The same reporting also raises questions about how these PACs function internally.

Hogg has been openly critical of campaign spending on consultants. However, according to campaign finance data cited by Axios, his own PAC spent $4.9 million in its first eight months, with about $2.5 million going to consultants and only $455,000 directly supporting three candidates.

For donors, that raises a simple question: where is the money actually going? And for voters, it raises an even more important question: how are candidates being selected and shaped before they ever appear on a ballot? This is just one PAC. There are thousands.

At the federal level alone, there are over 5,000 active PACs, and in recent election cycles, outside groups have spent billions of dollars influencing races at all levels of government. That money doesn’t just support candidates; it helps determine who is viable in the first place.

Donors don’t have full control over how their money is used once it's contributed to a PAC. Voters don’t see completely how candidates change to secure that support. And when candidates change their positions on issues like AIPAC or other issues, it becomes harder to tell whether they are committed or just adapting.

Our system has candidates seeking support, support determining viability, and positions shifting back and forth. For voters, this creates a sense of distance, not just from the candidates, but from the process itself.

That’s the gap my project aims to fill.

An unaffiliated, donor-free model removes this layer completely. Candidates are not competing for PAC approval or shifting positions to get funding. There is no secondary audience influencing decisions behind the scenes.

Instead, the focus is straightforward: what do constituents need, and what actually works?

That doesn’t eliminate disagreement or complexity, but it removes the incentive to say one thing to voters and another to funders, or to change positions as those incentives shift.

It realigns the relationship to what it should be: between the candidate and the public.

References:

• Axios — David Hogg’s PAC leaves some Democratic campaigns fuming https://www.axios.com/2026/04/06/david-hogg-pac-leaders-we-deserve-robert-peters
• Axios — David Hogg’s PAC struggles with spending and strategy https://www.axios.com/2025/10/02/david-hogg-pac-democrats-struggles
• Jewish Insider — Robert Peters, Illinois Democratic primary, and AIPAC positioning https://jewishinsider.com/2026/02/robert-peters-illinois-democratic-primary-house-seat-aipac/
• Federal Election Commission — PAC data and political spending https://www.fec.gov/data/committees/
• OpenSecrets — Outside spending and PAC totals https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/