As the countdown to the United States presidential election on November 5th continues, polls show a fierce race between Democratic Party candidate Kamala Harris and Republican Party candidate Donald Trump. However, when it comes to campaign donations, Harris has established a clear advantage over Trump. While the total donations for both parties have exceeded $1.5 billion, the Democrats have raised $1,004,978,132, and the Republicans have collected $468,152,242.
Harris’s entry into the presidential race in July provided significant momentum for the Democrats. In August, Harris’s campaign raised $361 million, while Trump’s campaign managed to raise only $130 million in the same period. When looking at PACs (Political Action Committees) and Super PACs, a different picture emerges. Super PACs supporting Harris have raised more than $273 million, whereas those supporting Trump have raised over $310 million.
How Does Campaign Funding Work?
The campaign finance process in the United States is overseen by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Individual donors can contribute up to $3,300 to a candidate, while they can donate up to $5,000 to PACs (Political Action Committees). Super PACs, however, can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, but they cannot directly coordinate with candidates’ campaigns. The most controversial element of campaign finance, “dark money,” which refers to expenditures made by groups that do not disclose their donors, remains a topic open to speculation.
The U.S. election system is structured such that candidates require large campaign budgets. This has made the relationship between money, lobbying groups, politicians, and political decisions an inseparable whole. Particularly since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in ‘Citizens United v. FEC,’ which allowed corporations, unions, and other organizations to make unlimited election expenditures, campaign spending has reached astronomical levels.
The Power of Money
The power of capital holders and lobbying groups to shape politics in the 2024 presidential election has become even more pronounced, particularly through Super PACs and “dark money” mechanisms. The influence of these groups is not limited to large donations made to candidates; they also play a crucial role in shaping the course of campaign processes. Specifically, sources of funding can exert pressure on the political futures of candidates. The most striking example of this is the situation of President Joe Biden, who, despite repeatedly announcing his determination to stay in the race, withdrew his candidacy due to threats of financial support being withdrawn and increasing public pressure.
Biden’s campaign was funded through major donors and Super PACs, with large donations playing a decisive role in his election bid. However, the difficulties he faced in raising small donations created a significant disadvantage in terms of support from his own base compared to Trump. After his performance in the debate on June 27, Biden came under criticism from big corporations and lobbying groups. This situation, despite the broad delegate support he garnered in the primaries, forced him to withdraw from the race.
The candidate who raised the most funds after Kamala Harris and Donald Trump was Republican Nikki Haley. Haley’s campaign was financed by 49% from large donors and Super PACs. Her potential to surpass Trump in the Republican primaries mobilized various groups. Meanwhile, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who split from the Democrats as an independent candidate and later declared his support for Trump, received 38% of his campaign funds from wealthy supporters like Ronald Reagan-era advisor Gavin de Becker. While these two candidates were backed by major donors, they were less successful in raising small donations.
The primary motivation for lobbying groups is to see the implementation of policies that protect their interests if the candidates they support are elected. While Trump’s strict immigration policies threaten industries like technology and agriculture, which rely heavily on foreign labor, companies in these sectors have turned to more moderate Democratic candidates. However, corporations that support Trump’s tax policies and his promise to lower corporate taxes continue to provide financial backing to his campaign.
Small Donors: A Reflection of Public Support
The most important aspect of campaign donations is the analysis of small and individual contributions. These donations can be a significant indicator of public support. Small donors made up 31.6% of Trump’s campaign contributions, while 42.13% of Harris’s were from small donors.
The legal issues Trump has faced have led his campaign to focus on a “deep state” conspiracy narrative. This theme resonated strongly with Trump’s base, and there was a significant increase in individual donations in parallel with his legal battles. Following the “Hush Money” case in April, only 4% of Trump’s campaign contributions in May came from large donors, while 30% came from small donations under $200.
On the Democratic side, individual donations gained momentum with Kamala Harris’s candidacy. In August, two-thirds of Harris’s donations came from first-time donors, and the majority of her total donations were small amounts under $200. This reflects the success of the Democrats’ strategy to expand their base and connect with new voters.
As the election draws near, it is clear that both visible and hidden money flows will continue to shape the outcome of the 2024 election, and the demands of campaign financiers will emerge after the election.
This article originally appeared in Turkish in the Analysis section of Anadolu Agency.