Blab Politics
Political Action Committees Use Deceptive Names to Mislead Voters, Study Finds
When a PAC’s name says ‘Progressive’ but its money comes from Republican donors, voters are left guessing. PACs now drive almost two‑thirds of federal election spending, raising roughly $6.3 billion and spending $4.8 billion since January 2025. A new study shows that many of those PACs are choosing names that signal the opposite of their true political goals, a tactic that can shift voter attitudes even when the underlying policy proposals stay the same.
The practice, called “tactical naming,” has been in use for at least a decade. PACs often adopt names that echo slogans or language associated with the party they want to influence. In 2014, the PAC Americans for Progressive Action donated more than $1.3 million to Republican Senator Gabriel Gomez’s campaign in Massachusetts. The PAC Patriot Majority USA ran ads that supported Democratic candidates while attacking Republicans in several states. In Ohio, the PAC Protect Women Ohio Action opposed a ballot measure that would have limited the state’s authority to restrict abortion, even though the measure was aimed at restricting abortion rights.
The current primary cycle offers fresh examples. PACs Real Change and Lead Left ran television ads and mailers that criticized Democratic candidates for supporting President Donald Trump, opposing Medicare for all and “cashing in on Trump’s terror.” The names of the PACs suggest progressive values, but closer inspection shows that the organizations are linked to Republican donors. When people subscribed to Real Change’s email list, the confirmation email routed through cavalryllc.com, the domain of Cavalry LLC, a Washington‑area communications firm founded by former chief of staff to Senator Mitch McConnell. Cavalry has received more than $10 million from the Congressional Leadership Fund, the super PAC that backs House Republican leadership. Investigative reports also found that Caleb Crosby, the treasurer of the Congressional Leadership Fund, founded a compliance firm that supported two conservative PACs that used the same address as Lead Left—a Staples store in Tallahassee, Florida.
To test how much a PAC’s name can influence voter opinion, researchers Brian Sheppard and Andrew Moshirnia recruited 650 participants through the academic platform Prolific. Participants read the text of four proposed laws and then saw a PAC name that was either congruent with the law’s ideology, incongruent, or neutral. The researchers measured changes in favorability ratings before and after the name was revealed. The results showed that misleading PAC names significantly shifted attitudes. When a left‑leaning law that expanded refugee worker rights was sponsored by a PAC with a right‑signaling name, such as Building the Wall, left‑leaning participants’ support dropped sharply. In contrast, a law sponsored by a PAC with a matching name, such as Humane Treatment of Migrants, did not alter the ratings of left‑leaning participants and had a minimal effect on right‑leaning participants. The study also found that participants who identified strongly with a party were more affected by incongruent names.
Federal regulations require PACs to disclose their names “in a clear and conspicuous manner” in political advertisements, but the tactic of using deceptive names can mislead voters about the true source of the message. An outright ban on deceptive PAC names would face First Amendment challenges. In 2020, a Montana court struck down a law that required PACs to name themselves in a way that clearly identified the economic or special interest of a majority of contributors, ruling that the law dictated how information must be packaged and violated free‑speech rights. The most viable intervention may be to require clear disclaimer statements in ads, but the constitutionality of such a requirement is uncertain.
In the absence of regulatory changes, transparency journalism and voter skepticism remain the primary defenses. Investigative reporting that traces money through shell companies, email domains, and corporate connections can expose deceptive PACs. Voters can also apply a simple rule of thumb: when a PAC’s name appears to criticize a candidate or issue that the PAC’s apparent political allies support, the organization may be using a deceptive name. The practice of “stealing” the names of political allies is a new form of political manipulation that can distort the informational environment in which voters make decisions.
The authors are affiliated with Seton Hall University and Monash University. The research underscores the need for voters and regulators to remain vigilant about the ways in which PAC names can shape public opinion.
The practice, called “tactical naming,” has been in use for at least a decade. PACs often adopt names that echo slogans or language associated with the party they want to influence. In 2014, the PAC Americans for Progressive Action donated more than $1.3 million to Republican Senator Gabriel Gomez’s campaign in Massachusetts. The PAC Patriot Majority USA ran ads that supported Democratic candidates while attacking Republicans in several states. In Ohio, the PAC Protect Women Ohio Action opposed a ballot measure that would have limited the state’s authority to restrict abortion, even though the measure was aimed at restricting abortion rights.
The current primary cycle offers fresh examples. PACs Real Change and Lead Left ran television ads and mailers that criticized Democratic candidates for supporting President Donald Trump, opposing Medicare for all and “cashing in on Trump’s terror.” The names of the PACs suggest progressive values, but closer inspection shows that the organizations are linked to Republican donors. When people subscribed to Real Change’s email list, the confirmation email routed through cavalryllc.com, the domain of Cavalry LLC, a Washington‑area communications firm founded by former chief of staff to Senator Mitch McConnell. Cavalry has received more than $10 million from the Congressional Leadership Fund, the super PAC that backs House Republican leadership. Investigative reports also found that Caleb Crosby, the treasurer of the Congressional Leadership Fund, founded a compliance firm that supported two conservative PACs that used the same address as Lead Left—a Staples store in Tallahassee, Florida.
To test how much a PAC’s name can influence voter opinion, researchers Brian Sheppard and Andrew Moshirnia recruited 650 participants through the academic platform Prolific. Participants read the text of four proposed laws and then saw a PAC name that was either congruent with the law’s ideology, incongruent, or neutral. The researchers measured changes in favorability ratings before and after the name was revealed. The results showed that misleading PAC names significantly shifted attitudes. When a left‑leaning law that expanded refugee worker rights was sponsored by a PAC with a right‑signaling name, such as Building the Wall, left‑leaning participants’ support dropped sharply. In contrast, a law sponsored by a PAC with a matching name, such as Humane Treatment of Migrants, did not alter the ratings of left‑leaning participants and had a minimal effect on right‑leaning participants. The study also found that participants who identified strongly with a party were more affected by incongruent names.
Federal regulations require PACs to disclose their names “in a clear and conspicuous manner” in political advertisements, but the tactic of using deceptive names can mislead voters about the true source of the message. An outright ban on deceptive PAC names would face First Amendment challenges. In 2020, a Montana court struck down a law that required PACs to name themselves in a way that clearly identified the economic or special interest of a majority of contributors, ruling that the law dictated how information must be packaged and violated free‑speech rights. The most viable intervention may be to require clear disclaimer statements in ads, but the constitutionality of such a requirement is uncertain.
In the absence of regulatory changes, transparency journalism and voter skepticism remain the primary defenses. Investigative reporting that traces money through shell companies, email domains, and corporate connections can expose deceptive PACs. Voters can also apply a simple rule of thumb: when a PAC’s name appears to criticize a candidate or issue that the PAC’s apparent political allies support, the organization may be using a deceptive name. The practice of “stealing” the names of political allies is a new form of political manipulation that can distort the informational environment in which voters make decisions.
The authors are affiliated with Seton Hall University and Monash University. The research underscores the need for voters and regulators to remain vigilant about the ways in which PAC names can shape public opinion.
