Before Ron DeSantis faced setbacks in his presidential ambitions, cracks were evident in his much-hyped political operation. An early supporter in New Hampshire shared an incident at a parade, revealing the strict control Never Back Down, a super PAC launched with an $80 million infusion from DeSantis' state-level PAC in Florida, exerted over campaign mentions.

This ambitious strategy aimed to secure the presidency through financial dominance, earning the nickname "Death Star" for its formidable resources and talent.

However, federal regulations prohibiting collaboration between campaigns and super PACs posed a challenge. As demonstrated by confusion at a parade, Never Back Down's vision clashed with these strict rules. Despite the initial fearsome prospect of a well-funded super PAC, the internal conflicts, resignations, and the formation of a breakaway PAC led to a spectacular collapse.

Despite the PAC's substantial spending, DeSantis struggled to gain traction in the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. Concerns mounted among his supporters about the decision to outsource critical campaign functions to Never Back Down. Blame was directed in various directions, with strategist Jeff Roe resigning due to perceived disparagement of his firm's operatives in a Washington Post story.

Internal conflicts, including a reported fistfight between Roe and the PAC's CEO, Scott Wagner, added to the turmoil. The dysfunction within Never Back Down raised questions about the viability of outsourcing campaign functions to a super PAC. A new knock-off version of the original PAC emerged, but its future remained uncertain.

Despite internal dysfunction, some Republicans viewed DeSantis as a fundamentally flawed candidate, suggesting that even a well-funded operation could only do so much. The PAC, rather than setting a new standard for campaign strategy, became a cautionary tale of how not to run a presidential bid.

“They wanted to have control of people who said yes and didn’t argue,” noted an early DeSantis supporter in New Hampshire. “You had a lot of arrogance in that group.”

Arrogance was matched by a historic amount of money. The PAC spent $96.8 million from the beginning of the year through the end of June, causing concerns among donors and prompting layoffs. As DeSantis faced challenges, the effectiveness of Never Back Down as a campaign strategy came into question. The PAC, despite its financial prowess, failed to secure the anticipated success, leading to a reevaluation of the decision to outsource critical campaign functions.

In the aftermath, with internal conflicts and a fractured strategy, DeSantis faced the risk of sliding backward in his presidential quest. The chaos within Never Back Down not only jeopardized the campaign but also prompted the formation of a breakaway PAC. The overarching lesson from this political saga is a cautionary one, emphasizing the potential pitfalls of relying too heavily on a super PAC and the importance of a cohesive and well-managed campaign strategy.