Vice President Kamala Harris' 2024 campaign surpassed President-elect Donald Trump’s in both fundraising and expenditures during the crucial final weeks surrounding the election.
NBC News reported that despite her loss, Harris' campaign raised $160 million and spent a whopping $277 million. Her formidable fundraising efforts outpaced Trump, who raised $87 million and spent significantly less, with expenditures reaching $113 million.
A closer look at Harris' spending reveals that her campaign allocated $129 million towards media purchases and ad production, showcasing an aggressive strategy to maintain voter attention. In contrast, Trump's campaign reported noticeably smaller figures in these areas.
Voter outreach was another critical area of expenditure for Harris, with her campaign dedicating $25.4 million towards text messages, canvassing, phone calls, and direct mail. Trump’s outreach spending was comparatively minor, with only $3 million on SMS ads and $1,500 on direct mail efforts.
The contrast between their campaign events was stark. Harris invested $45.5 million in various campaign events, while Trump spent a modest $632,000. These figures highlight the different strategic choices made by the two campaigns in engaging with voters.
Production companies linked with famous artists, such as Beyoncé, received significant payments from Harris' campaign, though the artists themselves did not receive direct compensation. This points to Harris' tactic of leveraging popular cultural icons to amplify her messaging.
Post-election, Harris' campaign efforts did not halt. Known through ActBlue data, her continued fundraising brought in $6 million to manage campaign expenses, ensuring all fiscal obligations were met. Jen O'Malley Dillon, the campaign chair, confirmed that Harris' campaign concluded without any financial liabilities.
Meanwhile, Trump’s campaign was left with $11.4 million in debt by the end of the period, largely owed to a call center in Iowa. This was a sharp contrast to Harris' successful financial closure.
Super PACs also played a significant role in the financial landscape of both campaigns. Future Forward, the leading pro-Harris super PAC, accrued $163 million but also amassed $47 million in debt by the end of the campaign period.
Dustin Moskovitz emerged as the top donor for Future Forward, contributing $12 million to bolster Harris' efforts.
On the other side, MAGA Inc., a pro-Trump super PAC, successfully closed its books without any financial liabilities, having raised $347 million in 2024.
Additional financial support for Trump came from super PACs like America PAC and Preserve America, underlining the vast network of financial supporters each candidate had harnessed leading up to the election.
Examining broader party finances, the Democratic National Committee closed the post-election period with $47 million on hand.
This was slightly ahead of the Republican National Committee, which ended with $42 million. Both committees showed strong financial health despite the fiercely contested campaigns.
Jen O'Malley Dillon expressed optimism regarding their financial position moving forward. She remarked on the comprehensive management, highlighting a future without the burden of debt across various campaign entities.
This thorough financial strategy, both in effective fundraising and strategic expenditure, highlights Harris' campaign as a finely tuned operation focused on maximizing outreach and minimizing fiscal liabilities, even in the face of electoral defeat.
As the 2024 election season draws to a close, the financial dynamics between these prominent campaigns provide valuable insights into the mechanisms of modern political competition and the diverse strategies employed in pursuit of electoral victory.
