Campaign budgets are not government money, they're private money. They're highly regulated and Kamala should be audited (it's routine) in 30 days or so, but she wasn't working with taxpayer money, she was working with donations. The taxpayers won't be picking up the tab, thank goodness. So the Democrats are left with the tab.
I wonder if the Democrats are going to criticize St. Kamala for her wild spending. I have heard she paid Oprah $1M for her "interview" (Oprah disputes this and she may be right, but it's a technicality--I think Kamala paid Oprah's company Harpo the million). I heard Beyonce commanded $10M.
Kamala spent money she didn't have on concerts in swing states. I suspect many of those people--the roadies, the sound people, the equipment people, the venues, etc., are just going to get stiffed. I hate it that working people won't get paid, but maybe they'll wise up and become Republicans after this.
"According to The Wall Street Journal, Kamala’s campaign had a war chest of $1.2B. She started this campaign fund with the money she stole from Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign. According to OpenSecrets.org, Kamala’s people raised $1.0B and got $649M on top of that from “outside sources,” meaning other donors."
These numbers overlook something really big ... the value to Kamala of positive media coverage of her and the value to Kamala of negative media coverage of Trump. Considering the amount of bias in the MainStream Media this election cycle, it's likely a staggering number.
Second, it wasn’t just the percent positive versus negative coverage that was in Harris' favor, it was the amount of coverage she got compared to Trump as well. For instance, Back in August this source (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/harris-89-negative-for-trump/ ) noted that “Harris received 66% more airtime than former President Donald Trump”.
Here's an interesting tool: https://mediabiasdetector.seas.upenn.edu. If you tell it to look at all coverage from Aug 1st to October 31st of the Kamala Harris Campaign and show the leaning of the articles (democRAT versus Republican) in various mainstream media, you find that the Huffington Post put out 672 articles and only 2% leaned Republican, while 90% leaned democRAT. CNN put out 489 articles … 4% leaned Republican while 74% leaned democRAT. The Washington Post put out 703 articles and 5% leaned Republican while 80% leaned demoncRAT. The New York Times had 636 articles with 4% leaning Republican and 78% leaning democRAT. The Associated Press put out 208 article with 1% leaning Republican and 71% leaning democRAT. Even the Wall Street Journal, with 204 articles, had 5% of them lean Republican while 57% leaned democRAT. Of course, there were a few outliers. Fox News put out 743 articles with 62 leaning Republican versus 21% leaning democRAT. Breitbart had 873 articles, with 67% leaning Republican and 25% leaning democRAT. Given that website ignores scads of left leaning media ... USAToday, Newsweek, Reuters, the LA Times, and on and on and on, suffice to say that the Kamala/Harris campaign were the beneficiaries of MANY, MANY, MANY times more positive MSM articles than negative ones.
Now note that the developers of the tool (which likely are left leaning university professors) didn't do the same analysis for the Trump Campaign, but I'm willing to bet that far more MSM articles again leaned democRAT rather than Republican in the reporting on him (in other words, they hurt Trump). And what’s that worth considering that most people (as opposed to people like us) probably developed their opinions of Harris and Trump from that unpaid MSM coverage of them, rather than from paid MSM ads? I would assert it was worth billions to the Harris campaign, since according to Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-political-ad-spending-soar-2024-with-tv-media-biggest-winner-report-2024-01-11/) the cost of US political advertising on traditional media, most of which is TV, in 2024 was about $8.9 billion. That means the leftist MSM wasted billions of dollars themselves trying to get Kamala elected (GOOD). But maybe this is something that the FEC needs to look at very carefully in future elections. It's appears to be a form of political donation that the MSM is getting away with making that all others would not be allowed to make with consequences.
I propose political candidates' spending be limited to a set amount of money. In other words, each could raise up X dollars for their campaigns and not spend one penny more. Let's see them work within a budget, as they ought to do in their political jobs.
Balance the country's budget and stop spending our tax dollars paying interest on debt!
I'm curious. Kamala went over budget on her campaign -- waaaayyyy over. So, who pays that overage?
Trump offered to ... ;)
Campaign budgets are not government money, they're private money. They're highly regulated and Kamala should be audited (it's routine) in 30 days or so, but she wasn't working with taxpayer money, she was working with donations. The taxpayers won't be picking up the tab, thank goodness. So the Democrats are left with the tab.
I wonder if the Democrats are going to criticize St. Kamala for her wild spending. I have heard she paid Oprah $1M for her "interview" (Oprah disputes this and she may be right, but it's a technicality--I think Kamala paid Oprah's company Harpo the million). I heard Beyonce commanded $10M.
Kamala spent money she didn't have on concerts in swing states. I suspect many of those people--the roadies, the sound people, the equipment people, the venues, etc., are just going to get stiffed. I hate it that working people won't get paid, but maybe they'll wise up and become Republicans after this.
"According to The Wall Street Journal, Kamala’s campaign had a war chest of $1.2B. She started this campaign fund with the money she stole from Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign. According to OpenSecrets.org, Kamala’s people raised $1.0B and got $649M on top of that from “outside sources,” meaning other donors."
These numbers overlook something really big ... the value to Kamala of positive media coverage of her and the value to Kamala of negative media coverage of Trump. Considering the amount of bias in the MainStream Media this election cycle, it's likely a staggering number.
First, according to a study by Media Research ( see https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2024/11/05/its-official-2024-campaign-news-coverage-was-worst-ever and https://www.nationalreview.com/news/harris-benefitted-from-unprecedented-bias-among-major-news-broadcasters-study-finds/), "Across ABC, CBS, and NBC, coverage of Kamala Harris was found to be 78 percent positive and 22 percent negative, according to the study conducted by the Media Research Center, a conservative-leaning media watchdog group. By contrast, Donald Trump received 15 percent positive coverage versus 85 percent negative, trailing Harris by 63 percent in terms of positive coverage." Other sources corroborated these numbers or numbers close to them.
Second, it wasn’t just the percent positive versus negative coverage that was in Harris' favor, it was the amount of coverage she got compared to Trump as well. For instance, Back in August this source (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/harris-89-negative-for-trump/ ) noted that “Harris received 66% more airtime than former President Donald Trump”.
Here's an interesting tool: https://mediabiasdetector.seas.upenn.edu. If you tell it to look at all coverage from Aug 1st to October 31st of the Kamala Harris Campaign and show the leaning of the articles (democRAT versus Republican) in various mainstream media, you find that the Huffington Post put out 672 articles and only 2% leaned Republican, while 90% leaned democRAT. CNN put out 489 articles … 4% leaned Republican while 74% leaned democRAT. The Washington Post put out 703 articles and 5% leaned Republican while 80% leaned demoncRAT. The New York Times had 636 articles with 4% leaning Republican and 78% leaning democRAT. The Associated Press put out 208 article with 1% leaning Republican and 71% leaning democRAT. Even the Wall Street Journal, with 204 articles, had 5% of them lean Republican while 57% leaned democRAT. Of course, there were a few outliers. Fox News put out 743 articles with 62 leaning Republican versus 21% leaning democRAT. Breitbart had 873 articles, with 67% leaning Republican and 25% leaning democRAT. Given that website ignores scads of left leaning media ... USAToday, Newsweek, Reuters, the LA Times, and on and on and on, suffice to say that the Kamala/Harris campaign were the beneficiaries of MANY, MANY, MANY times more positive MSM articles than negative ones.
Now note that the developers of the tool (which likely are left leaning university professors) didn't do the same analysis for the Trump Campaign, but I'm willing to bet that far more MSM articles again leaned democRAT rather than Republican in the reporting on him (in other words, they hurt Trump). And what’s that worth considering that most people (as opposed to people like us) probably developed their opinions of Harris and Trump from that unpaid MSM coverage of them, rather than from paid MSM ads? I would assert it was worth billions to the Harris campaign, since according to Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-political-ad-spending-soar-2024-with-tv-media-biggest-winner-report-2024-01-11/) the cost of US political advertising on traditional media, most of which is TV, in 2024 was about $8.9 billion. That means the leftist MSM wasted billions of dollars themselves trying to get Kamala elected (GOOD). But maybe this is something that the FEC needs to look at very carefully in future elections. It's appears to be a form of political donation that the MSM is getting away with making that all others would not be allowed to make with consequences.
I propose political candidates' spending be limited to a set amount of money. In other words, each could raise up X dollars for their campaigns and not spend one penny more. Let's see them work within a budget, as they ought to do in their political jobs.
Balance the country's budget and stop spending our tax dollars paying interest on debt!