The Chicago Tribune has taken Vice President Kamala Harris to task over her campaign spending, particularly highlighting significant payments made to celebrity figures like Oprah Winfrey during her unsuccessful presidential campaign. The editorial board emphasized the discrepancy between traditional campaign strategies and the decision to engage high-profile personalities, raising questions about the effectiveness of such expenditures.
Following reports of the Harris campaign disbursing $500,000 to Winfrey's production company, the Tribune reacted, stating, "Having someone with a large following simply stand next to a candidate at a podium and say a few words, solo, is one thing; doing a whole livestreamed event with, say, Oprah Winfrey, is another." This scrutiny came after the Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings revealed substantial amounts of campaign cash allocated to celebrity-driven events.
Particularly concerning was the total of two payments, each amounting to $500,000, made to Winfrey’s company shortly after she appeared at campaign events with Harris. Critics questioned the strategy behind relying on celebrity endorsements instead of fostering direct dialogue between Harris and voters.
Harris’ camp later faced additional criticism when questions arose over whether these payments constituted proper campaign expenditures. Winfrey herself denied any personal payment from the campaign, stating the funds were directed only toward production costs for her company. A representative from Harpo Productions clarified this, asserting, "Oprah Winfrey was at no point during the campaign paid a personal fee, nor did she receive a fee from Harpo," attempting to alleviate concerns over campaign spending practices.
The Tribune also expressed concern over the overall approach taken by Harris’s team. "Better yet, rather than do such events, the Harris campaign would have been more successful letting its candidate answer questions from independent journalists," they suggested, indicating voters’ desires for more substantive engagement over star-studded appearances.
Adding to the complexity of the electoral picture, Harris's recent campaign loss in Michigan raised alarms about the Democratic Party's broader strategy. Losing by more than 80,000 votes, Harris encountered challenges from demographics traditionally aligned with the party, including union workers, Black voters, and Arab Americans, many of whom either didn’t turn out to vote or shifted allegiances to Trump.
Democratic strategist Ameshia Cross noted the intense focus on campaigning, stating, "There's only so much you can do in 107 days," underscoring the limited time Harris had after President Biden exited the race. Cross urged greater emphasis on meaningful community engagement over traditional campaign tactics reliant on polling data.
Despite the presence of high-profile Democrats like Barack and Michelle Obama rallying support, turnout among key groups dropped. The economy, especially concerning rising grocery and housing costs, proved pivotal, as lower-income voters expressed dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs.
Specifically, Arab American voters, whose support had been pivotal for Biden and Harris previously, demonstrated increased support for Trump amid the historical backdrop of U.S. foreign policy. Campaign messaging from Trump targeted these voters directly, referring to him as the "president of peace" and leveraging local sentiments about U.S. involvement overseas to gain traction.
Location-based dynamics also played role; Harris's absence from Dearborn, the largest Arab-majority city, was particularly conspicuous. The community’s failure to align with Harris—although previously strong for Biden—demonstrated the need for more direct outreach.
Critics lamented the lack of listening to grassroots organizers. Sherry Gay-Dagnogo, former Michigan House of Representatives member, shared her frustrations, recalling, "I'm telling them we're getting 20 to 30 pieces of mail from Trump daily, and we've heard nothing from Harris. And then you see on TV they're raising a billion dollars. Like, what the hell?" This sentiment echoed across affected communities feeling overlooked and sidelined.
So, as Harris faced backlash over her expenditure choices, combined with the fallout from her Michigan loss, calls for introspection within the Democratic party echoed. The electoral struggle showcased not just individual campaign failures but the necessity for the party to recalibrate its strategies to appeal to disenchanted voters.
Facing rising discontent and shifting allegiances, Harris's experience raises significant concerns about the Democratic Party's future campaigning approaches, emphasizing the urgency for effective grassroots mobilization and authentic engagements over star power alone.
