Continued from page 1

“I moved things around and cleared enough time so they could run a documentary-style spot,” he said.

Mr. Marksteiner previously prohibited negative ads with unprovable accusations, effectively ruling out those from super PACs supporting Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. He said he wasn’t willing to risk his station being complicit in potentially libelous content.

“My position was other candidates are perfectly welcome to advertise on WHDT if they had something to say, and the only people with something positive to say that came forward were the Ron Paul people,” he said.

The end result of his donation was the first and only entree into the television market of a group that has otherwise been online-focused — a strategy Mr. Marksteiner encouraged the PAC to deviate from in Florida.

“People in Florida are much older and they don’t go online,” he said.

Endorse Liberty spent $2 million on online advertising campaign with Google in January, with its only other major buys from WHDT and Smiley Media.

Realized and unrealized fears

The volunteering of services could compound an existing problem with super PACs: They risk decentralizing a message away from candidates, leading to conflicting or piecemeal narratives. Super PAC administrators could feel pressure to accept free work from a company when they might have chosen a different or more established one if they were paying.

But while PAC administrators can turn down in-kind contributions, employees of a firm have less say. They could cause employees who disagree with their boss’s political preferences to feel unwanted pressure if they have a role in doing candidate-specific work, such as manufacturing buttons with his name — much more so than would be caused by the company’s CEO quietly mailing a check.

In-kind contributions were the biggest boons to Endorse Liberty with the exception of its sudden major benefactor, Monday’s disclosures showed: The founder of PayPal gave $1.7 million last month, making Peter Thiel of San Francisco one of the largest players in the presidential race.

Other than the ones that provided free services, the only corporations to give to the super PAC were Reno-based Polka Dot Publishing at $10,000, get-rich-quick website at $500 and a green-energy consulting firm at $250.

That cuts to the heart of the in-kind contributions’ significance: The onslaught of million-dollar checks from major corporations feared by critics of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling largely has never materialized. Companies such as Pepsi, for example, have seemed reticent to risk the backlash of alienating half of its customers by clearly aligning itself with one party.

The more important tenet of the campaign finance change was the removal of the existing $5,000 cap on donations to political committees by individuals. Executives who made millions of dollars helping run those companies soon discovered it was more prudent and effective to write checks from their personal bank accounts.

But the potential for divisiveness is particularly pronounced in a primary election, where even businessmen with similar ideological predilections have different preferred candidates, so the potential remains for corporate donors to emerge, including major financial firms — whose main product is money.