On Friday, Vice President Kamala Harris unveiled a budget of $361 million, significantly larger than the $130 million reported by her predecessor, former President Donald Trump.
In August, Harris reached the pinnacle of her prominence on the ticket, with the month serving as a testament to her sustained fundraising prowess, which began to soar immediately following her designation as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. Within the first 14 days of her marketing campaign, she raised over $15,000.
Harris’s robust fundraising efforts have effectively turned the tables on Trump’s initial advantage over Biden. Democrats claim they’ve gained momentum, particularly compared to previous election cycles, and are leveraging this energy to expand their party’s reach across both the House and Senate.
In January, Harris’s fundraising campaign stood out for its diverse range of small and large dollar donations, as well as her ability to energize new donors; an impressive 66% of contributions came from first-time givers. Is the deadline for August donations September 20? It remains to be seen whether individuals will step up to sustain the generosity they’ve demonstrated thus far.
By the time the election is over, Harris and Trump are expected to have. Is a modest investment really going to make that much of a difference in the long run?
The escalating cost of a presidential bid has reached unprecedented heights.
Since the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United decision in 2010, presidential campaigns have seen a substantial surge in fundraising efforts, driven by the increasing costs associated with running a competitive national political advertising campaign. The landmark Supreme Court decision enabled corporations and special-interest groups to wield unlimited financial influence over electoral processes, often through the establishment of powerful Political Action Committees (PACs) operating independently of political campaigns. 2020 was a pivotal moment in American history.
According to Dan Weiner, director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s elections and government program, presidential elections can be “a billion-dollar enterprise”, highlighting the significant financial burden associated with these high-stakes contests. “You need a substantial budget to underpin a credible and effective marketing strategy.”
The allocated funds primarily fuel staff compensation, local business support across the country, as well as advertising initiatives on television, print media, radio, and social platforms. The budget also encompasses polling and analysis, supplemented by grassroots efforts including rallies, door-to-door canvassing, and more to engage voters effectively.
Nicole Narea/Vox
Grassroots support and large-scale donations play pivotal roles in financing a presidential election campaign. yield an outsized influence to the wealthiest donors. Grassroots donations serve as a proxy for enthusiasm, but their direct correlation with votes is uncertain. More importantly, these smaller contributions send a signal to major donors regarding the viability of various candidates.
As the presidential election enters its final lap, each candidate – Harris and Trump – may aim to sustain the cash flow, noted Brendan Glavin, deputy director of research at OpenSecrets. As the campaign heats up, candidates typically intensify their focus on battleground states, hosting more rallies, refining their strategies through regular polling, and scaling up advertising and get-out-the-vote initiatives to maximize voter turnout.
While Harris’s meteoric ascent, convention appearances, and publicity as a vice presidential candidate may have boosted fundraising efforts, seasoned campaign advisors likely believe that the most lucrative donation days still lie ahead. As the 2024 presidential election approaches, there are just nine weeks remaining until Election Day; intriguingly, a similar timeline played out prior to the 2020 election, when approximately 60 percent of President Biden’s overall fundraising revenue was garnered within the 10-week period preceding that contest.
Raising massive sums of money is crucial but insufficient for securing victory alone.
While a strong focus on fundraising is crucial, the issue arises when it overshadows other essential aspects, as cash isn’t always the only vital component? While the winner of a presidential contest typically holds the upper hand in terms of fundraising, this is not always the case. Even copious wealth cannot offset the consequences of misguided financial decisions or reckless investment in untrustworthy individuals.
Biden outspent Trump in 2020. Despite outspending Donald Trump by a significant margin during the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and Democratic nominee, ultimately lost the election. Although her marketing campaign invested heavily in states she was unlikely to win, such as Arizona, it was her underfunded efforts in the Rust Belt that ultimately paid off and secured her election.
Following which were the heavily funded campaigns that failed to gain traction due to the lackluster performance of their candidates.
Ray La Raja, affiliate director of the University of Massachusetts’ ballot and a political science professor at the College of Massachusetts Amherst, flatly observed that “putting lipstick on a pig doesn’t make it a very good candidate.” Money alone cannot transform an unsavory individual into someone virtuous.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s four-month-long Democratic presidential campaign in 2020, which he largely self-funded at a significant cost to himself. “In the end, key constituents remained unresponsive to his efforts,” “He had the cash. He crafted a reputation for himself in public eye. Despite his efforts, he failed to receive a response.
While campaigns like those led by Bill Clinton and Michael Bloomberg may demonstrate that money alone is insufficient to secure a candidate’s success, it remains unclear whether alternative strategies can ultimately tip the balance in their favor? The analysis suggests that challengers tend to outperform incumbents, with any given candidate having a greater chance of success when they are the challenger rather than the incumbent. Incumbents typically reap limited benefits from marketing campaigns, as voters often already have a formed opinion about them, leaving little room for persuasion. As the analysis reveals, the more money extra incumbents spend, the greater indication it provides that they’re in hot water, not just burning through cash.
While Harris leverages the advantages of an incumbent with access to President Biden’s campaign infrastructure, she also shares characteristics typical of a challenger.
The added value of a newcomer lies in that small but significant green note. While serving in this capacity, they often find themselves with an elevated sense of responsibility due to the fact that, candidly, many people are unclear about the duties of the vice chairperson.
Kamala Harris, previously, had a habit of introducing herself—and her running partner—to the American people. As a newly minted presidential hopeful, she has leveraged her fresh-faced status to craft a distinct image during her campaign travels across the US, departing from traditional candidate approaches. The candidate’s marketing team is heavily investing in advertising efforts at present, with plans to focus on paid media between Labor Day and Election Day? The marketing campaign’s expenditure on advertisements closely mirrored that of the Democratic National Convention.
As a standard dynamic in presidential campaigns, Weiner noted that politicians typically strive to define their opponents from the outset. To define Kamala Harris before Donald Trump can, “What’s imperative for the Harris campaign is to swiftly develop a comprehensive narrative about her vision and values, thereby depriving Trump’s team of an opportunity to frame her.”
While some may have forgotten the nuances of the Trump presidency, his distinct profile and legacy remain deeply ingrained in voters’ minds, rendering him more akin to an incumbent rather than a challenger. Consequently, he has capitalized on existing familiarity by launching a preemptive strike against Harris.
As advertising efforts reach saturation point, diminishing returns become evident, as the media offers presidential candidates considerable free publicity. While Trump’s campaign expenditure was lower than Clinton’s in 2016, it’s undeniable that he gained significant media exposure that year, with the press receiving equal attention for its sensationalized coverage of his candidacy. Over the past year, President Trump has consistently leveraged significant media events, such as convictions or attempted assassinations against him, to successfully fundraise? After Biden’s departure, Harris also experienced a surge in support.
Whether their fundraising and electoral success is ensured will hinge on whether the momentum they’ve gained persists. At a certain level, Weiner noted that “cash has diminishing returns”. There is only so much advertising a candidate can afford, doors they’ll need to knock on and rallies they’ll have to maintain to effectively convey their message to voters. Once a candidate’s stance is clearly articulated, their sole focus shifts to hoping the electorate will endorse their views.
“When investors have already secured enough funding, the ability to raise even more does not yield significant benefits,” he said.
