In a dramatic demonstration of the outsized impact of political donations on American democracy, the 2024 US Presidential election saw an astounding $4.7 billion channeled toward the campaigns of Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the various groups backing them. Dodging standards of fiscal responsibility, a bulk of this capital hailing from October 17 to November 25 was accounted for in recent filings, paired with previous revelations.
A meticulous examination of the data lays bare a striking monetary gulf that exists between the ostensibly segregated political camps, the Democrats, and their cohorts, being the apparent victors having raised an estimated $2.9 billion. This considerably dwarfs the $1.8 billion collected by the Republicans showcasing a disadvantageous position for the latter.
Despite justly deserved cynicism, it is noteworthy that the Democrat’s campaign was enriched from a premature commencement, circumventing a battle around primaries, and prematurely signing a joint fundraising pact with the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Though at first glance, this might seem like adept strategic planning, it invites critical questions about the Democrat’s intentions and their aggressive approach to amassing campaign funds.
The Democrats’ head start allowed them to gather larger contributions, a direct result of Biden declaring his intentions to run for re-election in April 2023. The abnormal haste of the Biden campaign raises many concerns about fostering a toxic political climate fueled by relentless fundraising rather than transparent governance.
The Democrats, unfortunately, paid little heed to these concerns. They proceeded to raise approximately $2 billion from Biden’s announcement until the election day. Their associated Super PACs, Future Forward and American Bridge, added another $652 million humiliation to the fiasco. It’s worth questioning the integrity of such a campaign strategy, where monetary might appears to overshadow the true essence of democratic participation.
All these figures, when summed up, lead to the eye-watering $4.7 billion total tally, which embarrassingly includes the funds wrangled during the Republican primaries. Noteworthy is Trump’s campaign’s alleged application of a significant percentage of these funds against Republican opponents, which indeed merits serious discussion about ethical considerations in electioneering.
More concerningly, the influence of ‘Dark Money’ significantly tipped the scale in the final weeks running up to the election. The primary Super PACs for both campaigns showed a highly concerning reliance on contributions flowing from affiliated Dark-money sources. Labelling these as ‘Grey Money’, the escaping ambiguity and lack of transparency around the origins of such donations only add fuel to concerns over their legitimacy and influence within democratic processes.
Despite the flagrant financial excess observed during the campaign, both teams demonstrated considerable caution in managing their finances post-election. Overspending loomed as a serious threat due to potential debts, whilst underspending concurrently bared the possibility of questions over unutilised resources.
However, the financial irresponsibility of the Democratic campaign clearly emerged post-election. The allegedly impeccable campaign was reported to have an outstanding debt of $20 million yet astonishingly wound up the race claiming no outstanding debts and with $2 million on hand. The general public deserves a transparent explanation considering the stark discrepancy between these figures.
Meanwhile, the report explicitly mentioned an $11.4 million in outstanding liabilities as of November 25, along with a cash reserve of $10 million and receivables of $4.7 million. One must wonder, such irresponsible financial practices could possibly trickle down to critical areas of governance, should this campaign reach its presiding ambition.
One cannot overlook the role Elon Musk played in the theatrical performance of the 2024 election. The billionaire entrepreneur emerged as a monumental monetary influencer, flushing $277 million through his corporations into various federal groups, indirectly bolstering the Republican campaign.
Despite this immense boost, Musk’s contributions were largely overshadowed by his sole funding of a Super PAC created to defend various issues. Whether this involvement was a calculated political move or a genuine desire to steer America’s future remains a mystery, further underlining the influence of big money in politics.
While it could be interpreted as a positive aspect of their campaign that Democrats managed to clear post-election debts, the methods employed to achieve this feat still hangs under a cloud of suspicion. The supposed fiscal responsibility starkly contrasts with the earlier projection of a $20 million financial hole.
Overall, the overarching theme of the 2024 election campaign was not of policies or platforms, but of how deep the pockets were of those involved. The Democrats seem to have emerged as the winners in this monetary show-down, leveraging their considerable financial resources to swamp the political landscape.
This expose, therefore, leaves little room for interpretation beyond confirming the growing concerns of financial excesses in American politics. Rather than grassroot engagement and democratic discussions, it appears that elections have devolved into an arena where money talks louder than the voice of the electorate.