I believe the ones I have seen are from a PAC, endorsed by Clinton, but I believe that makes little to no difference in reality. If their side believes it is necessary to spend a significant amount of their campaign funds in a state that they should have locked up, I see it as a sign if significant weakness in their chosen candidate.
On second thought, I agree. Given that the PAC and the Clinton campaign are almost certainly illegally coordinating, one is the same as the other.