in

Harris Blows Whopping $165k on Beyoncé’s Production Firm: Wasteful Spending?

Records freshly disclosed from the Federal Election Commission indicate that Kamala Harris’ presidential bid forked out a whopping $165,000 to none other than Beyoncé’s notorious production firm, Parkwood Production Media LLC. This questionable expenditure was made back in November, just around a month after the pair showed up together at a function in Houston, Beyoncé’s own backyard. Parkwood Production Media LLC flies more popularly under the flag of Parkwood Entertainment, a mixed bag of management, production, and record label underpinnings that Beyoncé herself spun into existence in 2008.

The tangles of Harris’ questionable financial decisions don’t end there. With her campaign garnering criticism for its exorbitant spending and eventual failure despite hoarding in over a billion dollars, a closer look reveals even more dubious transactions. Notably, an astonishing $1 million was spilled into the coffers of Harpo Productions, the firm founded by TV stalwart Oprah in October.

Check out our Trump 2025 Calendars!

Shedding light on the specifics, the campaign coffers were drained not once but twice into Harpo Production on October 15, with each hefty sum totaling up to $500,000. Given the timeline, it’s difficult to see any reasonable justification for such spending, with no immediate or tangible return to campaign health or popularity.

Interestingly, while Harris made a habit of traipsing into her campaign events to the beats of Beyoncé’s ‘Freedom’, the two didn’t share a platform until a mere 11 days before the general election. The event that drew them together wasn’t graced by a performance from the pop icon herself. Instead, Beyoncé spent the occasion declaring her backing for Harris, closely followed by her former Destiny’s Child group mate, Kelly Rowland.

This political orchestrating, carefully tactfully placed against the backdrop of reproductive rights advocacy – one of Harris’ pet causes on the campaign trail — seemingly attempted to cater to a specific demographic. How effective the calculated move was in her favor remains subjective. The Houston rally, at the Shell Energy Stadium, was notably designed more in the vein of a pop concert than a typical political gathering.

Bizarre sidelines from the conventional political ground, like the allocation of color-shifting light-up wristbands to the approximate 30,000 constituents present at the rally, to the non-stop spinning of current pop and rap hits by a DJ, created an atmosphere more befitting of a festival than a campaign event. Indeed, the out-of-place ambiance raises questions about Harris’ objectives and campaign strategy.

In the realm of U.S politics, the law prohibits companies from contributing to political campaigns directly, whether these contributions are cash donations or other expenses. Therefore, it raises eyebrows as to how this was any different for the Harris campaign, with its requisite reimbursements for event essentials like sound and lighting borne by her campaign fund.

Michael Kang, a prominent law professor at Northwestern University, defended such practices. He justified that it is common for political campaigns to shell out fair market amounts for services ranging from media production to licensing rights and entertainment arrangements. Given the satirical spending habits of the Harris campaign, one might argue that the ‘fair market value’ topic itself is up for debate.

Adding an extra layer of seemingly superficial flair to her campaign, Harris is an established fan of Beyoncé. To the point that she quite predictably made entrances at her campaign events to the tune of Beyoncé’s ‘Freedom’. Whether or not this added charm or merit to her candidacy, however, remains a contentious issue.

Moreover, Harris benefited from endorsements by big names, including Taylor Swift as well as Jennifer Lopez. However, these glittering celebrity tokens seemingly did little to elevate her standing in the eyes of the public or add any real weight to her campaign, once again putting her spending priorities into question.