Red-boxing

Red-boxing is a tactic used by American political candidates to coordinate with their political action committees (PACs) in a way that circumvents campaign finance laws. Political campaigns place statements or requests on public campaign websites which are then used by PACs to support the candidate. It is used by both major American parties, but most often by Democrats. The name for the practice comes from the red-colored box that often surrounds the instructions for PACs on campaign websites.[1][2]

Campaigns will use boxes to focus PACs' attention on certain aspects of opposing candidates' biographies, including past controversies. They often include detailed instructions on what type of ad to use, what areas to target, and what age, gender, or ethnicity to appeal to.[1]

Red boxes are most often located in the "Media Resources" or "Media Center" sections of a campaign website where political operatives know to look. Instructions sometimes use terms like "hear" for radio ad requests, "read" for direct mail, "see" for television, and "see while on the go" for digital ads.[1]

Complaints about illegal coordination between political campaigns and PACs involving public material posted online submitted to the Federal Election Commission have not resulted in any action.[1]

According to Adav Noti, the legal director of campaign finance watchdog group the Campaign Legal Center, "The coordination of super PACs and candidates is the primary mechanism for corruption of federal campaigns in 2022."[1]

A 2022 New York Times survey found that at least 19 Democrats running in four states holding contested congressional primaries on May 16, 2022, had used some kind of red-boxing. Republicans did not rely on red-boxing as much, largely using other tactics to communicate with PACs.[1]

In August 2022, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the Philadelphia Board of Ethics was considering an amendment to the city's campaign finance regulations which would explicitly ban red-boxing. Opponents of the amendment argued that its wording was too broad, and would also cover normal campaign messaging.[3]