Democratic megadonor and attorney John Morgan raises concerns about Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential campaign spending practices.
According to Newsweek, Morgan suggested that campaign funds exceeding $1 billion may have been "legally" stolen through mismanagement and careless spending decisions during Harris' 107-day presidential bid.
The controversy stems from reports of the campaign's substantial advertising expenditures in states where victory seemed unlikely, such as Florida, which Trump won decisively. Morgan's criticism particularly focused on the role of consultants and ad buyers, who he believes profited significantly from the campaign's spending decisions.
Morgan shared his observations during an appearance on NewsNation's CUOMO show on Monday, where he detailed his concerns about the campaign's financial decisions. The attorney specifically questioned the strategy behind running expensive television advertisements in states where Democratic victory was improbable.
Speaking about the campaign's financial management, Morgan emphasized how the rapid influx of donations created opportunities for various consultants and ad buyers to profit. He explained that the commission-based structure of political advertising encouraged excessive spending regardless of strategic value.
The Democratic megadonor revealed conversations from a recent White House dinner where discussions centered around campaign payments and consulting fees. These discussions highlighted growing concerns about the allocation of campaign resources and their effectiveness.
The Harris campaign faces conflicting reports about its financial standing. While reports indicate the campaign and Democratic Party ended the election cycle with a $20 million deficit, campaign officials present a different narrative.
Patrick Stauffer, the campaign's chief financial officer, made a statement on November 16 addressing these concerns. He assured that upcoming financial disclosures in December would show no outstanding debts for either the campaign or the party.
Despite these assurances, the vice president continues to seek donations after her electoral defeat to President-elect Donald Trump. This ongoing fundraising effort has raised eyebrows among donors and political observers. Morgan shared his perspective on the campaign's financial decisions, stating:
All of a sudden, everybody's got the keys to the candy store, ad buyers, talent, consultants. There's 100 days to do it, and the money started pouring in. She had all this money coming in. She had all these consultants, and if you don't run the ads, you don't get paid for the buy. They were running ads in Florida, where I live, nonstop. And I'm like, why? I mean, are they running in Alabama and Idaho, too? And I'll tell you why. If you don't run the ads, the buyer doesn't get paid.
The campaign's financial management has potentially long-lasting consequences for Harris's political career. Morgan expressed skepticism about her political future, suggesting that the controversy would significantly impact donor trust.
Morgan noted that the campaign's financial decisions might permanently damage Harris's credibility with donors. He emphasized that most donations were motivated by opposition to Trump rather than support for Harris specifically.
The vice president and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, are scheduled to address their top donors in an upcoming call on Tuesday. This meeting comes as questions about campaign spending and financial management continue to circulate.
Vice President Kamala Harris's presidential campaign has come under intense scrutiny from Democratic megadonor John Morgan over allegations of financial mismanagement and questionable spending decisions during her 107-day presidential bid. The controversy centers on the campaign's handling of over $1 billion in donations, with a particular focus on advertising expenditures in traditionally Republican strongholds and the role of consultants in spending decisions. While campaign officials maintain there will be no outstanding debt, the situation has raised questions about Harris's political future and her ability to maintain donor confidence.
