Insane Spending By the Kamala Harris Campaign in the 2024 Election
How to blow $1 billion, lose an election, and end up $20 million in debt
This takes skill. The Kamala Harris campaign spent over $1 billion on the 2024 election, which they lost, reportedly ending up $20 million in debt. Before we dive into the details of the insane spending and ask the simple question—“Why?”—please appreciate the following fact.
The Harris campaign outraised Donald Trump’s campaign ~$1 billion to ~$388 million. Notably, these numbers do not include super PAC spending (i.e., outside spending), which shattered records with the 2024 election.
Outside spending on the 2024 presidential race pitting Vice President Kamala Harris against former President Donald Trump has soared to a historic high of over $2 billion — marking the most expensive U.S. election in history, even when adjusted for inflation. Prior to this year, the most expensive election in U.S. history was the 2020 presidential race when about $1.14 billion was spent by outside groups. - opensecrets.org
Each side has its own billionaires and super PAC spending is dark, murky, and difficult to track. Thank you, Citizens United and the current conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.
It makes you wonder if many of our polarization problems in America would be resolved if money wasn’t speech under the law and U.S. election cycles were more like their European equivalents (i.e., a fraction of the time).
While it may be difficult to track super PAC donations and spending, how the campaigns spend money is very transparent thanks to Federal Election Commission reports. So let’s examine how the Harris campaign could have such a sizeable monetary advantage and yet still lose as badly as it did (not even winning a single swing state!).
The most egregious spending by the Harris campaign
Let’s get the big one out of the way — $2.5 million to Oprah’s production company, Harpo Productions. Oprah is a billionaire. Even if this money was for her staff that ran a glitzy event for Harris, it begs the question of why donor money was spent supporting a billionaire.
Oprah didn’t have a couple million to donate herself? It reminds me of the time her and The Rock asked ordinary people for money after the devastating fires in Maui. That didn’t go over well.
Some people, responding to a related TikTok video I made on this topic, came to Oprah’s defense. One person asked how a small business would put on that sizeable town hall event. Another person noted that $1 million was likely the cost of the production.
I’m not disputing either point. They’re both missing two key considerations, however:
Oprah is a billionaire and could have covered it easily instead of invoicing a campaign that accepts small donations from millions of hardworking ordinary Americans; and
Why even have this glamourous, star-studded event in the first place?
Celebrities barely move the needle in elections. If anything, they hurt the Democrats in the 2024 election. The last thing many Americans struggling under the weight of inflation want to hear is some multimillionaire—who’s set for life—telling them how to vote.
It’s like those Oscar speeches riddled with politics that nauseate just about everyone but the other celebrities in the audience. They are out of touch.
The Harris campaign was terribly out of touch to think celebrities could convince anyone in swing states to vote for Kamala. They even spent some $4 million on the Village Marketing Agency to connect the campaign with more celebrities and influencers. As if they couldn’t connect to the top people themselves?
One of the few major podcasts Kamala Harris appeared on was Call Her Daddy, which is very popular with women. But Kamala didn’t appear on the show for free. Her campaign paid for an entire ad hoc production set, spending some “six figures.”
Somehow I doubt Joe Rogan asks his guests to pay for his production sets. Rogan’s Trump episode generated around 50 million views by election day whereas the Call Her Daddy interview with Harris failed to reach even 1 million.
Then there was the ~$13 million on political consultants. They probably produced giant binders of reports and analyses that hedged and said nothing. And none of these “experts” convinced Kamala Harris of the obvious guidance — go on more podcasts.
As I was arguing in multiple essays ahead of the election, Kamala Harris needed to go on big podcasts, especially those popular with young men.
Do you know who did show up in all of those places? Donald Trump.
And the great thing about those podcasts? They’re free. Unless it’s Call Her Daddy, I guess.
The Harris campaign was reportedly nervous about the long-form format of podcasts like Joe Rogan. Yes, Harris would have had to answer tough questions, but if you’re trying to be the leader of the free world, shouldn’t you be able to handle Joe Rogan for 2 hours? Please.
The bulk of the Harris Campaign spending went to advertising — some $654 million, practically double Trump’s overall campaign budget. Instead of spending hundreds of millions on advertising alone, Trump did a social media blitz. He spoke to voters directly on all of the big podcasts. It was free.
Trump’s campaign supplemented his social media blitz with targeting advertising, including this very effective ad on Kamala advocating for government-funded sex changes for prison inmates.
Where do Democrats go from here?
First, fire the consultants. All of them. Political, media, and digital, they all need to go.
While some consultants may play a role in providing certain forms of data about the electorate, if a candidate does not how to connect with voters, they probably shouldn’t be running.
The Democrats need to drain their own swamp. I hate using a Trump term, but it’s accurate here — too many political insiders have influenced Democratic campaigns to the point they feel more corporate than authentic. The worst is when they win — they all come hunting for favors.
The Democrats would gain a lot of credibility by disassociating themselves from the establishment apparatus of consultants, lobbyists, and special interests, all seeking to influence their campaigns.
Go more populist. Refocus on connecting with working people, which is the first of 10 changes I recommended that Democrats make. No fancy consultant or media company should be needed to help them connect with ordinary Americans.
A fancy, celebrity-driven town hall is not going to resonate with working people. So fire all of the celebrities. If they want to post or show their support individually, great. But the endless campaign-organized and funded concerts, shows, and events filled with everyone from Lady Gaga to Eminem and Bruce Springsteen, just don’t move the needle enough when convincing people to vote.
Whatever happened to talking to people directly? Town halls with straight answers. Podcasts where a candidate can reveal their humanity. YouTube videos like the one Trump did with a pro golfer, which was genuinely entertaining.
Supplement this direct messaging with targeted advertising. Go after the demographics you’re already winning and build more momentum. Remind working people how Trump’s policies are not in their best interests, but without lecturing or patronizing them.
Instead of doing this, the Democrats want to solve their problems with the same old strategies. I wanted to pull my remaining hair out after reading this from Chris Korge, the Democratic National Committee’s finance chair:
“I will absolutely push for an introspective study and analysis of the campaign, its structure, its messaging, all communication platforms and budgeting.”
No, Chris! This sounds like more fancy consulting and wasteful analysis. The same strategy that got you here.
Hit the pavement. The dirt roads. The working towns of America’s heartland. Talking to real voters will elicit far more insight than a consultant’s report nicely packaged on K Street.
It’s crazy that Democrats have effectively become an establishment party. The party of white college-educated rich people. The party that no longer represents the working class, even though many of their policies are far better than the alternatives.
Democrats must return to their roots if they want to win again.
They have so many good economic arguments without going full-blown socialist. A platform focused on income inequality could be so persuasive. Ending unfair tax loopholes like the existing one on carried interest. Forcing billionaires to pay their fair share.
Income inequality should be pounded early and often if Democrats want to win again.
This message should not be delivered by conduits, whether it’s Oprah, a DNC operative, or some fancy consultant.
Whoever becomes the next candidate must speak to the people directly. Ideally in long form discussions.
The good news? That won’t cost $1 billion.
The best from The Political Prism last week:
Will Senate Republicans Buckle to Trump on Recess Appointments? by David Grinberg
A Sweep of the House, Senate, and the Presidency by Peter Sassi
In America, Does Being ‘Legal’ Even Matter Anymore? by Neela
What People Wonder About American Elections Abroad by Paula Brown
For more from the great politics publication, The Political Prism, where I am the editor, check out our Medium page and subscribe!