Dems Fear Harris' Continued Fundraising 'erodes Trust'

The 2024 election is over. But Kamala Harris’ fundraising emails keep coming — and sound as urgent as ever.

“Even a quick donation of $50 is enough to help us in this fight,” said one email sent two weeks after Election Day. “And with only hours left to hit our goal today, NOW is the best time to rush your support.”

Another recent message carried the simple subject line: “Please do not click away.”

The fundraising appeals may be necessary: Harris’ operation ended with around $20 million in debt, according to two people familiar with her campaign finances and granted anonymity to speak freely. And there are limited ways campaigns can pay that down under federal law.

The emails themselves don’t mention debt, instead citing the organization’s support for recount efforts in close races and legal challenges. And the Harris campaign denies that the campaign or affiliated joint fundraising committees had outstanding debts on Election Day, and says they won’t report debts owed in future Federal Election Commission reports due in December.

But the fundraising appeals have still continued, and some Democrats fear she may be compounding the party’s problems with the tone of some of her appeals — damaging relationships with online donors who have long powered the party. In just a few months, the vice president built up a record-breaking fundraising operation. She raked in funds from millions of online donors within the first week of her candidacy, and continued to hold fundraising events well into the fall. Now those same donors who helped her raise more than $1.4 billion are among the people being asked to give more. The emails still come two or three times a day.

“I understand that the Harris campaign is in a very difficult position with the debt that they have, and so sometimes you just have to make practical decisions,” said Mike Nellis, founder of the Democratic digital firm Authentic, whose clients include top Democratic House and Senate candidates. “But yeah, I think that stuff like that erodes trust.”

A Harris campaign official emphasized that the campaign is not asking any universe of donors for more than they were giving before the election. And some fundraising was necessary, the person noted, for costs associated with shutting down the campaign, including maintaining some staff, closing offices and making sure remaining financial reports are in compliance.

But concerns about both the party’s approach to small-dollar fundraising and how it is spending that money are spilling into the race to lead the Democratic National Committee. Members of the party’s governing body are raising alarms about the Harris campaign’s spending choices after it burned through a staggering sum at a rapid clip. And some are calling for more oversight into the party’s disbursements as a result.

By far the greatest expense for the Harris operation was paid media, with her campaign spending $551 million on digital and TV ads from when she replaced President Joe Biden in mid-July through Election Day, according to data from AdImpact, which tracks politics advertising. In early October, the most recent period covered in campaign finance reports, media productions and buys accounted for 77 percent of spending. Payroll was the next largest category, at just 2.5 percent of spending.

James Zogby, a longtime DNC member who is running to serve as the committee’s vice chair, said the sometimes “begging” tone of the party’s donation solicitations is not a “good look, I don’t think it sends a good message.” And its effectiveness as a fundraising tool is something the broader DNC membership “ought to be able to evaluate and talk about and say: Did this produce or did this not produce?”

Zogby is calling to create a financial oversight committee that would be elected by DNC members to give them more oversight of the party’s spending, including the firms it contracts with, as part of his leadership bid. In doing so he is renewing a push for more financial transparency he made during the party’s Unity Reform Commission era in 2017.

“I want to make sure we have a conversation about, where does the money go, and why don’t we know where it goes?” Zogby said.

Donald Trump has also continued to fundraise through a joint fundraising committee post-election. Recent fundraising messages have primarily hawked merchandise, including Christmas MAGA hats and holiday ornaments, or other giveaways, like a chance to attend inauguration in January.

Independent-turned-Trump supporting candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign was left with debt after he dropped out of the race in August; he has been openly sending fundraising emails asking supporters to help pay it down.

It’s not uncommon for presidential campaigns to end an election cycle with debt, and options for paying it off are limited — and can take a long time. Committees are subject to contribution limits even after the election, so they can’t call on just a few large donors. Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, for instance, ended with $25 million in debt — some of which was personal loans — that was not fully paid off until 2013. Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign reported $6.8 million in debt after that election; it was not fully retired until 2018.

The post-election fundraising emails from Harris have been raising money for one of the joint fundraising committees affiliated with her campaign. Per fundraising disclosures, money raised through the committee goes first to the DNC, then her campaign’s recount account, and then to state parties. Those transfers would happen after expenses paid by the joint fundraising committee.

The Harris operation’s emails had been transparent about the committees supported by the money, with the money going to the DNC and state parties positioning them to help with contested races, as many of the messages say, said Will Bunnett, a Democratic digital strategist.

“By and large, the Harris-Walz folks sending these messages are doing a pretty good job,” he said.

How donors respond to that is a separate issue. And those who aren’t interested in giving are free to ignore the messages, or unsubscribe, he noted.

“Will donors, or potential donors, or email subscribers, appreciate getting those messages? Will it feel like a reasonable ask of them?” Bunnett said. “And the answer to me as a practitioner is, ‘Well, that's up to them.’”

Christopher Cadelago and Brittany Gibson contributed to this report.