Kamala Harris’s campaign reportedly spent over $1 billion in just a few months, leaving the campaign in significant debt, according to multiple reports.

The Harris team managed to burn through its entire campaign budget.

Despite massive spending, the Harris campaign remains $20 million in debt.

Celebrate Trump's Historic 2024 Victory with the Exclusive Trump 47th President Collection!

Donald Trump offered to help them pay it off.

Do you think the economy will come back roaring quickly when Trump takes office?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

Among its high-ticket expenses was a replica set built in Washington, D.C., for Harris’s appearance on the “Call Her Daddy” podcast, a decision reportedly made to avoid flying to the show’s original Los Angeles location.

The costly investment did not translate to substantial engagement, as the interview failed to reach a million views.

Meanwhile, Harris declined a potential interview with Joe Rogan, a host with a large audience reach.

The campaign also reportedly spent $15 million on celebrity concerts, including performances by Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, and Ricky Martin at a rally on election eve.

While the events were intended to boost enthusiasm, they did not yield a significant increase in voter turnout.

Harris’s campaign also reportedly allocated $1 million to Harpo Productions, Oprah Winfrey’s company, which facilitated a September town hall and an appearance by Winfrey at the rally in Philadelphia.

Aug 21, 2024; Chicago, IL, USA; Oprah Winfrey speaks during the third day of the Democratic National Convention at the United Center. Mandatory Credit: Jasper Colt-USA TODAY

One Democratic source speaking to NewsNation called the spending spree “remarkable incompetence.”

The source commented, “It takes remarkable incompetence to spend $1 billion in 90 days, lose market share, allow Donald Trump’s election, and end up in debt.”

Winfrey recently responded to questions surrounding her involvement in the campaign spending.

When approached by a TMZ reporter on the street, Winfrey was asked about her reported $1 million endorsement fee for Harris.

Winfrey denied the claim, stating, “Not true. I was paid nothing, ever.”

The report does not allege that Winfrey personally profited from her endorsement, only that Harpo Productions was compensated for facilitating the events.

The Harris campaign’s heavy spending on promotional events and celebrity appearances raises questions about its strategy.

According to the Washington Examiner’s Gabe Kaminsky, these expenditures highlight the campaign’s lack of focus on delivering a clear, impactful message to the American public.

Instead, funds were used for events and initiatives that did not convert into voter support.

Critics point out that instead of focusing on tangible voter outreach and policy messaging, the funds went toward creating high-profile appearances and events that did not resonate with voters, especially those dealing with economic challenges.

Trump’s campaign, by comparison, relied on fewer employees and lower overhead, focusing on direct voter engagement and managing costs in line with his “America First” message.

As a result, Trump’s campaign appears to have achieved a more efficient use of resources, while Harris’s high-profile strategy left her campaign in financial turmoil.

As America faces economic strain, this spending by the Harris campaign has drawn scrutiny from political observers and donors, many questioning the financial decisions made by the campaign amidst a backdrop of economic difficulties faced by voters in the Biden-Harris era.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.