The article is likely to increase the anger of donors who have been reluctant to contribute after the wild spending of the Harris campaign. The notion of a bait-and-switch is even greater after the Harris campaign denied it had lingering debts that would have to be paid off by the DNC.
What is particularly shocking is that the Axios report said that in the “first six months of 2025,” the DNC has spent over $15 million on Harris’s debts. Politico is reporting that the DNC only raised $15 million as of the end of June in comparison to the Republican National Committee (RNC) having $80 million “on hand.”
The amount reported by Axios may be low. The New York Times reported that the DNC “covered” roughly $20.5 million in “post-election bills” for Harris’s campaign.
My assumption is that, absent a pledge to spend on future campaigns, the use of donations for debts (even of past candidates) is lawful. It is not without legitimate questions when the DNC is raising money on the pledge to retake Congress in 2026. The DNC can argue that money is fungible and paying off debts is part of its operating budget. However, at a minimum, there is a concerning lack of transparency and disclosure in the “private agreement” with Harris.
In the meantime, Harris is starting a book tour for her book “107 Days,” which promises that Harris will “tell the story of one of the wildest and most consequential presidential campaigns in American history.” It likely does not include a chapter on burning through a record $1.5 billion, which was insufficient even with supportive media, to secure the White House.