As post-mortems continue on Vice President Kamala Harris’s second unsuccessful run for the presidency, one theme has surfaced time and again: the staggering amount of money her campaign poured into efforts to sway voters in critical battleground states. With nearly $1 billion spent, questions are surfacing over how effectively the funds were managed and whether all that money ultimately helped or hurt her campaign.
Among the most talked-about expenses was the million-dollar “Unite for America” event in Michigan, hosted by Oprah Winfrey. While Winfrey’s company, Harpo, denied any personal profit from the Harris campaign, the event still raised eyebrows as critics questioned if the campaign’s high-profile alliances led to real voter engagement or were merely high-cost spectacles.
Other costly ventures included a $100,000 investment in creating a set for the Call Her Daddy podcast, an attempt to reach a younger audience that ultimately missed the mark with critics and voters alike. And in the final sprint, Harris’s campaign paid $20 million for a series of concerts nationwide, including one in Pennsylvania that received criticism from the Philadelphia Democratic Party the day after the election.
If you’re Kamala Harris and people are worried you might be too progressive, it’s probably not wise to go on MSNBC with Al Sharpton and let him put words in your mouth that you are, in fact, super progressive and soft on crime. pic.twitter.com/LzRo19l76A
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) October 21, 2024
But perhaps the most controversial spending of all was a $500,000 donation to Reverend Al Sharpton’s organization, the National Action Network (NAN), shortly before a high-profile interview with Sharpton on his MSNBC show. The timing was notable: two donations of $250,000 each were recorded just weeks before Sharpton featured a complimentary segment with Harris, in which he praised her campaign’s “historic” significance and underscored her focus on “conscience” and “truth.”
This sizable contribution and the positive coverage that followed have ignited a debate over the ethics and optics of such donations, especially given Sharpton’s role as both interviewer and political ally.
These substantial payouts to various media personalities and influencers bring into question the authenticity of Harris’s campaign, with critics arguing that her campaign seemingly relied more on purchased endorsements than genuine voter support. The high-profile events and media placements did little to assuage criticisms that her campaign was orchestrated, carefully curated, and ultimately out of touch with everyday voters.
Instead of building organic enthusiasm, Harris’s team appeared to focus on high-dollar contributions to those who could shape public perception. This approach, critics say, may have backfired by emphasizing the appearance of support rather than building real connections on the ground.
Do these optics concern anyone? Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) w/ Al Sharpton, as Harris refuses to answer Qs about Smollett case. When the story 1st broke, Harris immediately called it an “attempted modern-day lynching.” Optics with Sharpton’s staging of the Tawana Brawley hoax? pic.twitter.com/lpVuUzHJOE
— John R Lott Jr. (@JohnRLottJr) February 21, 2019
In an era when authenticity is valued and voters are increasingly skeptical of politics as usual, Harris’s strategy has been met with a wave of skepticism. The extensive spending on flashy events and influential endorsements likely didn’t do enough to win over undecided voters, who often look for candidates that seem genuine and invested in real issues over high-profile spectacle.
As some critics have pointed out, if Harris’s campaign felt it necessary to invest heavily in boosting endorsements rather than in grassroots engagement, that choice alone may have reinforced doubts about her ability to connect with voters on her own merits.
