Kamala Harris Campaign's Costly Pre-Election Concerts Leave $20M Debt Amid Non-Payment Fears

The Kamala Harris campaign is under fire for a $20 million concert spree on election eve, which may have left staffers and vendors unpaid.

The presidential campaign reportedly spent a whopping $20 million on concerts in key swing states, just hours before polls opened, and these events, aimed at boosting voter turnout, featured stars like Jon Bon Jovi and Lady Gaga but led to a significant financial shortfall, as the New York Post reports.

The financial strain was exacerbated by the cancellation of a planned concert featuring Alanis Morissette, in an effort to curb spending. Despite such measures, the campaign faced a daunting $20 million debt as the dust settled on the election.

Star-Studded Concerts Fail to Ignite Voter Turnout

While the concerts drew large crowds, they did little to sway the election results. High-profile artists including Christina Aguilera, Katy Perry, and 2 Chainz performed without charge, yet the logistics involved required extensive planning and resources.

Insiders report that teams of 40 to 60 people were assembled in some cities to manage the concerts, contributing to ballooning costs. “They had huge advance teams for these concerts, like 40-60 people in some cities,” revealed an insider.

Campaign Strategists Push for High-Impact Events

Stephanie Cutter and David Plouffe, veterans of former President Barack Obama's campaigns, were pivotal in advocating for the concerted strategy. They believed that the star power could translate into electoral gains, a notion supported by Jen O’Malley Dillon, the Harris-Walz campaign chairwoman.

However, the approach drew criticism internally, particularly as late-stage planning led to increased production costs. Dana Rosenzweig, the campaign operations chief, came under scrutiny for not voicing budget concerns sooner.

Oprah Winfrey's Dramatic Appeal in Philadelphia

The only concert that captured significant media attention was held in Philadelphia, where Oprah Winfrey made a poignant speech about what she feared would be the consequences of a Trump victory. Despite her efforts, the turnout the following day favored Trump, leading to his election victory.

“We will not have the opportunity to cast a ballot again,” Winfrey emphasized at the rally, trying to underline the importance of every vote.

Internal Concerns Over Financial Management

The aftermath of the election has left the Harris campaign grappling with financial reconciliation. Efforts to manage the accumulated debt are ongoing, with continued fundraising attempts to offset the deficit.

“They said they were ‘spending to zero.’ I guess they overshot zero,” a campaign source wryly noted, reflecting the financial miscalculations that plagued the campaign’s final days.

Impact on Local Vendors and Campaign Staff

Despite the campaign's financial woes, initial staff payments were reportedly unaffected. However, the broader impact on local vendors remains a concern. “I’m sure vendors will start to get upset soon,” another source mentioned, anticipating potential discontent among those awaiting payment.

As the campaign attempted to reduce costs, talent was even cut from some city lineups. “They definitely knew the budget crunch at the end because they cut talent from some cities because of cost,” another source added.

Lessons Learned from Campaign Spending

Post-election analysis suggests that the concerts may have been a strategic misstep, with funds perhaps better allocated towards direct voter communication, particularly on economic issues. The criticism points to a disconnect between the campaign’s priorities and the voters' immediate concerns. “It didn’t matter to have a bunch of celebrities talking to no one because one, 75 million people already voted and two, people were concerned about their own financial issues, not Oprah telling them America won’t exist,” a campaign source explained, summarizing the misalignment.

As the Harris campaign navigates its post-election landscape, the focus remains on understanding the implications of its financial decisions and preparing for future political engagements more judiciously.