Kamala Harris’ $1.03 B campaign faces backlash over celebrity payments and debt

Kamala Harris‘s 2024 re-election campaign brought in an impressive $1.03 billion. Still, after all was said and done, the campaign ended up owing some $20 million debt. Much of the money had gone toward paying celebrities for endorsements.

Beyoncé got paid about $10 million by the campaign for her endorsement according to reports. Despite the payment, all she is said to have done was make a brief speech not even being accompanied by any live performance. The agreement likely took full account of her immense power of influence.

Megan Thee Stallion was paid $5 million too, and Lizzo costed the campaign $3 million. Other celebrities included Eminem, who was reportedly paid $1.8 million, and Oprah Winfrey also was said to have been paid $1 million to endorse the campaign.

Large paychecks may have raised pointed questions in the minds of various people as to whether celebrity endorsements were worth the gigantic amounts spent on Harris’s image.

People felt that those amounts could have been used for more effective campaigning techniques instead of misallocation with loss-making the campaigns strategies. Many people got the feeling that this money was not put into the right places.

Heavy celebrity spending has turned out to be a point of controversy in the context of campaign financial struggles. Undeterred by the plans, the campaign had been able to raise more than a billion dollars, but the debt only seemed to continue to climb.

The celebrities were paid apparently for the purpose of energizing the voters, especially the younger and more diverse segments. However, the strategy turned out to be a backfire for most because it seemed quite unconnected to what mattered most to the electorate.

While these celebrities attract attention to the campaign, they come at a price. The thing to consider is whether or not benefits are gained from celebrity endorsements weigh against the costs, especially when such a campaign is financially struggling.

Kamala Harris’s campaign has turned out to be a bad example. Spending millions on celebrities kept the campaign deep in debt, and what return on investment remains to be known. Celebrities can raise visibility for candidates, but electoral success is not guaranteed.

As the 2024 election curtains are dropped, attention will return to the traditional core of issues. Inevitably, voters will scrutinize the allocation of funds by such campaigns. The financial situation of the Harris campaign speaks to risks about the saturation dependence on face value in campaigns.