'Big donors no longer essential': The 'psychological' advantage Harris has over Trump
26 August 2024
Harris mocks 'Mr. Anytime, anywhere, anyplace' Trump over debate demand: 'Running scared' to Fox News
Political analyst and former US Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) on Monday compared the difference between ex-President Donald Trump's campaign's current need for contributions from "big donors," versus Vice President Kamala Harris'.
Speaking with McCaskill, MSNBC host Alicia Menendez pointed to a Sunday article published by Reuters reporting that Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, have raised $540 million since launching last month — "the most ever for any presidential campaign in this time span."
The report notes that the amount includes $82 million the 2024 Democratic nominee received during the party's convention last week.
READ MORE: 'Let Trump be Trump': Harris campaign ramps up messaging strategy
"It's tactical advantage," over Trump and his running mate, Senator JD Vance (R-OH), Menendez noted. "It's also a psychological one."
The ex-Missouri lawmaker added, "Especially when you consider where that money is coming from."
McCaskill then noted, "One of my most interesting events at the convention was visiting with some big donors. And you know what they figured out, Alicia? They figured out that they're becoming irrelevant. Big donors are no longer essential to the Harris-Walz campaign."
The ex-senator pointed out that unlike Trump and Vance, Harris and Walz "are not going to spend time in venues trying to raise money from a bunch of folks who gathered a bunch of checks that have commas in them. They are getting their money from folks who are giving $5, $10, $25. That's where this money is coming from. It is broad based."
"Meanwhile, Vance, if you look at his schedule — he is dominating his days with raising money," McCaskill added. "So they are not in the same position that Harris-Walz is, in terms of this ground swell of volunteer support and monetary support. And maybe the best thing the internet has ever done for politics is maybe putting little money into politics is finally going to do a better job of taking big money out of politics, which we'd all like to see, especially after the Citizens United decision."
READ MORE: 'Trump should be quaking': Pollster’s inability to find women for focus group spells trouble for GOP
The US Supreme Court decided in the January 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case that "corporations and other outside groups" can "engage in unlimited amounts of campaign spending," according to the Campaign Legal Center.
Watch the video below or at this link.