Records released by the Federal Election Commission show a hefty payment of $165,000 made by Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign to Beyoncé’s production company, Parkwood Production Media LLC. This transaction took place on November 19, a timeline that aligns curiously close to an event both Harris and Beyonce attended in Houston. The transaction hints towards a possible strategy by Harris’ team to gain popularity, yet it’s puzzling to evaluate the effectiveness of this game plan.
On a broader scale, the failed Harris campaign was characterized by questionable financial practices that did not seem to generate the desired returns. This outrageous expenditure to Parkwood is a prime example, but so too is the $1 million handout to Harpo Productions, the company owned by Oprah. However, just throwing money at influential figures did not help Harris in securing the presidency, pointing towards monolithic misunderstandings about the way to appeal to voters.
The Houston event, also headlined by Harris, was noteworthy for reasons beyond the notable attendees. Held at Shell Energy Stadium, the rally quickly appeared to be more akin to a concert rather than a typical political gathering. There was no shortage of showmanship, with color-changing light-up wristbands and a DJ frequently oscillating between the high-profile pop and rap songs.
It’s not uncommon for campaign trails to utilize celebrities or influential figures as a source of attraction. This strategy, however, can easily backfire if the candidate assumes that their celebrity endorsement alone will guarantee widescale appeal. In the case of Harris, her hope seemingly rested on Beyoncé’s ability to attract fans, rather than her own inherent substances as a candidate.
Harris’ campaign also cashed out half a million dollars twice, totaling a million dollars, to Oprah’s production company in mid-October. This clear attempt to associate her campaign with another influential figure, again, demonstrates the misplaced priorities within her failed presidential run.
Interestingly, despite forking over $165,000, Beyoncé didn’t perform at the mentioned Harris event held on October 25. She made a declaration of support for Harris, which, of course, doesn’t necessarily justify such a magnanimous investment by a political campaign. Furthermore, Harris continuously making entries to her campaign events using Beyoncé’s ‘Freedom’ presents another facet to this strategic misfire and points towards an over-estimation of the power of celebrity popularity.
Beneath all the glamour and elaborate tactics to attract crowds, it is a dilemma why Harris leaned into reproductive rights at that decadent Houston rally. Especially so, when considering the extent of expenditure involved in hosting the event. Perhaps overshadowed by the stardom and concert-like atmosphere, the real political agenda of Harris seemed to have gotten lost amidst the spectacle.
The ‘concert-event’ at the Shell Energy Stadium reportedly attracted roughly 30,000 attendees. The interesting part is, one wonders if they showed up in support of Harris’ political agenda or were they merely there to be part of a concert-like experience. Once again, this significant expenditure raises eyebrows and leaves one awash in a sea of questions regarding the kernel of campaign strategies.
Considering that companies cannot legally donate to political campaigns, whether monetarily or in terms of other expenses, Harris’ style of campaign running feels particularly flagrant. These expenses must, by law, be reimbursed, and the scale of Harris’ spending arguably illustrates a disregard for this key point of legislation.
On a more serious note, Michael Kang, a law professor at Northwestern University, mentioned that campaigns could make payments at market value for services like media production work, licensing rights, or entertainment services. While technically true, the question remains whether it’s sensible to pour money into efforts that clearly fell flat for Kamala Harris.
Beyond Beyoncé, Harris received a series of endorsements from a number of big-name celebrities. These include the likes of Taylor Swift and Jennifer Lopez. And yet, despite these high-profile endorsements, one cannot help but wonder if the endorsements were more of a reflection of celebrity backscratching as opposed to real political support.
Speaking of endorsement strategies, Harris has repeatedly been spotted entering her campaign events to the soundtrack of Beyoncé’s ‘Freedom.’ While this might have been intended as a nod to her personal admiration for the artist, the choice ended up reflecting a disconnection with the realities of running a pragmatic, impactful political campaign and suggested a misguided focus on superficiality.
Overall, assessing the expenditure patterns of Kamala Harris’ failed presidential campaign, the strategy seems to have been deeply flawed. The reliance on celebrity popularity, expensive events, and dare one say – Hollywood-esque theatrics, appears to have done nothing but derail the seriousness of the campaign’s message.
This begs a broader question about how politics and celebrity endorsements are evolving. Do prominent figures help or hinder a campaign? In Harris’ case, the answer seems clear. Costly endorsements and events catered towards popular culture have proven ineffective and reflect a tragic mismanagement of campaign funds.