The Democratic presidential candidate for vice president of the United States, Kamala Harris (EFE/EPA/BIZUAYEHU TESFAYE)
Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign has upended traditional electoral tactics with unprecedented financing capacitysince taking Joe Biden’s place on the Democratic ticket.
With an electoral treasury close to the 1 billion dollarsstrategists face the challenge of distributing these enormous sums efficiently, in an environment where political spending reaches historic dimensions. However, behind the astronomical figures and the spectacular advertisements in places like the Las Vegas sphere, there remains a debate about the impact of money on American democracy and the balance of power in elections.
The monumental figure of almost $1 billion raised by Harris’ campaign has raised questions about how a budget of such magnitude is managed. An analysis by Richard Luscombe published in The Guardian explains that this money comes from individual contributions, political organizations and Super PACs, and is intended for a wide range of activities, from staff costs and printed materials to public events and transport.
Donald Trump during a campaign event (REUTERS/Brian Snyder)
However, the real priority remains advertising. According to AdImpact, since Harris became a candidate, Democrats have spent 1.1 billion dollars in advertisements already broadcast or reserved for television, radio and digital platforms. This represents 400 million more than the Republicans and underlines the Democratic commitment to maintaining a dominant presence in the media.
Media spending is not limited to traditional channels. Modern platforms like Snapchat, YouTube y Facebook have become key tools, particularly in attracting young voters. Analysts point out that the campaigns have developed an entire infrastructure dedicated to producing digital contentworking almost 24 hours a day to reach different segments of the electorate.
A television in a restaurant shows the news in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (REUTERS/Brian Snyder)
The fate of the election is largely played out in swing states, and the Harris and Donald Trump teams have identified Pennsylvania as critical territory. With its 19 electoral votes, this state can tip the balance, and polls suggest a technical tie that keeps both campaigns in constant and aggressive spending. For example, Democrats have invested in ads during Philadelphia Eagles and Pittsburgh Steelers games, in order to capture the attention of younger, less politically engaged voters, a demographic they consider crucial.
However, the campaign has not been limited to television advertising. As part of an aerial outreach strategy, the Democratic National Committee spent a six-figure sum to display pro-Harris banners over several parties in the NFLreinforcing the message in massive events and taking advantage of every opportunity to impact public opinion.
A monitor off stage during a presidential debate between Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and Democratic presidential candidate and US Vice President Kamala Harris (EFE/DEMETRIO FREEMAN)
The way campaign teams allocate their resources has changed dramatically in recent years, influenced by the fragmentation of media consumption. Before digital proliferation, campaigns relied on the few television channels available to broadcast their messages. Today, with the explosion of digital platforms, the options have diversified, allowing messages to be segmented much more precisely.
Steve Caplan, professor of political advertising at the University of Southern California, explains that this diversification has allowed campaigns to optimize their budget. Digital ads are not only cheaper, but they also reach specific audiences. The Harris campaign, for example, has leveraged Snapchat to appeal to young voters, maximizing the impact of its investment.
Meanwhile, the ability of millionaires to influence elections has grown exponentially since the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v FEC in 2010. This decision allowed unlimited donations to PACs, facilitating the intervention of large fortunes and corporations. in the electoral process. Super PACs like Elon Musk’s, aligned with Trump, have raised significant sums, operating as extended arms of official campaigns.
Elon Musk speaks before Republican presidential candidate and former president Donald Trump at a campaign event at Madison Square Garden in New York (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), PAC money has reached astronomical figures. Democrats, through entities such as ActBlue and the Harris Victory Fund, have led the collections with more than 5 billion dollars. In contrast, Republicans have relied on contributions from business elites, with the WinRed PAC leading the way with $1.4 billion.
The disproportionate influence of billionaires worries defenders of transparency and political ethics. Attorney Noah Bookbinder of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) warns of the dangers of a small elite acquiring disproportionate power, comparing this dynamic to oligarchies in nations like Russia. On the other hand, experts such as Bradley Smith, former chairman of the FEC, suggest that the situation is more complex and that the massive participation of small donors remains a vital factor.
Some critics fear that unlimited funding will dilute the concerns of ordinary citizens and divert politics toward elitist interests. David Kass, director of Americans for Tax Fairness, said the 60% increase in donations from billionaire families since 2020 “it drowns out the voices and concerns of ordinary Americans.”
Just days before the elections, the movements in the closing of the campaign can be decisive. What is clear is that both Harris and Trump have enough money to try to convince undecided voters in the last hours before the vote.
