NEW YORK (AP) — Vice President Kamala Harris raised $27 million at a packed New York City fundraiser on Sunday, her largest fundraising haul since she took over at the top of the ticket from President Joe Biden, according to a Harris campaign aide.
Though Harris has far more money than former President Donald Trump, the money will be needed to compete with pricey advertising by deep-pocketed outside groups that support Trump, said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private fundraising details.
It feels important to note that Harris and Trump don’t need your money.
If a candidate can sell $27,000,000 worth of favors off a single event in New York City, then remember that your friends, neighbors, and community are struggling and their mutual aid requests can use your $5-$10 donation much, much more than the POTUS candidates, both of whom have billionaires in their corner.
Thank you for saying this. If you’re not in a swing state, it feels like a waste to donate (although I wouldn’t donate to her campaign anyways because of her policies). I don’t support the duopoly and would prefer to see someone that needs the money actually receive it.
They as a candidate don’t, the campaign as a whole is important to support though. Particularly if it can be shown that the funds come from small doners it shows popular support. I would rather see a crowd funded candidate with millions of $5 donations than a handful of super-pacs funneling dark money into it. It’s exactly the kind of problem that citizens United caused that we need to revert to show the popular will of the people.
It’s exactly the kind of problem that citizens United caused that we need to revert
I agree, but I think we both know Citizens United is never being repealed. It would take a violent, nationwide revolution to change the moneyed machinations of our political machine, especially now that SCOTUS put the stamp of approval on candidates loaning their campaigns money at interest.
The whole concept of corporations as distinct eternal entities could use a reworking. From copyright, to liability, to corporate ‘speech’, it all shields to interests of the well heeled from responsibility for their actions. Some level of separation from an individual is needed or no small business would ever date take the risk of starting up, but at a certain point somebody needs to own the actions of it. How we define that is beyond me, but for now I’d take removing non-breathing entities from the voting pool and political funding as a start.
