Mega-donor: Democratic overspending disqualifies Harris ‘forever’

[Sullivan]

Mega-donor: Democratic overspending disqualifies Harris ‘forever’​

Vice President Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) are set to address the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) finance directors amid reports that the campaign is $20 million in debt after a lavish spending spree.

Political mega-donor John Morgan told NewsNation’s “CUOMO” on Monday that those who poured money into the Harris-Walz campaign were trying to defeat Trump, not elect Harris — and her campaign’s spending is cause for serious concern.

“All of a sudden, everybody’s got the keys to the candy store, ad buyers, talent consultants. There’s 100 days to do it, and the money started pouring in,” Morgan said, adding that “ego” and a “crazy” desire to obtain commissions on placed ads drove much of the spending.

It included $15 million for “event production,” $4 million in private jets and an additional $1 million to Oprah’s company, among other pricy purchases.

When asked if Morgan believes someone possibly stole the money, he said, “Maybe legally.”

The donor added that the reported $1.5 billion spent in four months is proof that Harris shouldn’t run again.

“I think this disqualifies her forever,” Morgan said. “If you can’t run a campaign, you can’t run America.”

“The same thing is going to follow Harris for the rest of her career. She cannot be trusted with the money, and the donors are going to be, like, ‘Where is this money?'” he added.

Lindy Li, a member of the DNC finance committee, told NewsNation’s Rich McHugh that the internal strife and monetary confusion at the center of the party have led some staffers to leave altogether.

The money, Harris’ campaign says, is not an issue.

“As of Election Day, there were no outstanding debts or bills overdue and there will be no debt on either the DNC or HFP report for post general report,” Patrick Stauffer, Harris campaign’s chief financial officer, told The Hill.

Morgan told NewsNation’s Chris Cuomo in July that he wouldn’t fundraise for Harris after her entrance to the presidential race, calling himself a “Joe Biden-Democrat” and identifying as an independent.

MSN

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Pretty amazing that the Harris campaign burned through $1B in a hundred days and is in debt.

Kind of a metaphor for the campaign.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

Lady who proposed 25% wealth confiscation, bad with money you say?

 

[RicoSuave102954]

When asked if Morgan believes someone possibly stole the money, he said, “Maybe legally.”

He added that the reported $1.5 billion spent in four months is proof that Harris shouldn’t run again.

“I think this disqualifies her forever,” Morgan said. “If you can’t run a campaign, you can’t run America.”

“The same thing is going to follow Harris for the rest of her career. She cannot be trusted with the money, and the donors are going to be, like, ‘Where is this money?'” he added.

 

[Nole Lou]

This is one of my favorite talking points and I'll never stop banging it.

Politics is almost entirely a grift today. It's first a grift, foremost a grift, and overwhelmingly a grift before anything else.

Politics has always HAD graft. From the beginning of time. But I think it's only since Trump that it's PRIMARILY a grift...as in, the grift is the entire point. Trump, and much of the right, just basically made the subtext the text starting in 2016. It's not the least bit shocking that the lessons were learned by the Dems as well...there's just too much money, it's too damn easy to collect, and no downside risk.

The thing that is so damn frustrating is that for like 2500 years or however long there has been politics as we know it, there has been graft, but the graft required that you win. So no matter how larcenous, how craven, and how corrupt you were, you had to moderate your positions enough to win elections, deliver enough services and efficiency to be reelected, and compromise enough to pass bills so you had accomplishments to run on. Basically, if you wanted to award sweetheart contracts to cronies, misappropriate public funds, appoint allies to no-show jobs, etc...you had to win an effing election and at least manage some level of effective governance to do get the keys to the cash register.

But that's out the window now that:

a. it is incredibly easy with the internet to raise tons of money from individuals essentially anonymously and with zero accountability whatsoever. Back in the day, when the main source of campaign contributions was looking someone in the face, taking a check for $1000 or $10,000 from them, there was a certain amount of not being able to just piss the money away, so you could go back to the person. Money is raised so anonymously with nobody to hold accountable now.

b. The sheer amount of money that is spent on campaigns means that skimming and scamming campaigns is far lucrative enough, without having the risk of actually losing. All these grifters on both sides win whether their candidate loses or not. There just didn't used to be enough money in a presidential campaign to make you better off grifting the campaign, than getting into power and accessing the real cash flow.

I sincerely believe that the majority of these rent-seekers, consultants, go-betweens, subcontractors, etc literally don't give a shit if their candidate wins or not. They just care about peak hysteria and fear of the other to drive donations. It has led to terrible candidates, terrible campaigns, and extra divisive rhetoric.

I absolutely guarantee that a proper autopsy would discover that is the primary reason that Harris got the nomination by default, when many people intended there be an expedited primary or at least an open convention to produce the best available candidate, was the grifter-industrial complex that was built up around the Biden-Harris team and campaign. Too many people had too much to lose if candidates changed, so they were much more willing to roll the dice with a poor candidate that could lose, than take a chance on losing their access to the sweet sweet campaign coffers they had established with Biden-Harris. A switch to Newsome or someone else, and they would have brought their own grifter-kickback-crony ecosystem, and can't have that. Better to lose but get paid.