I am tracking the numbers as the purses are great signals on where things stand. Please these numbers are from the mandatory fillings which candidates are required by US laws to file with the Federal Election Commission.
August total fund raised by candidate’s direct campaign:
- Kamala Harris – $190 million
- Donald Trump – $44.5 million
August total spending:
Harris – $174 million ($135 million was on ads)
Trump – $61 million ( $47 million was on ads)
Amount in the bank on Sept 1:
- Harris – $235 million
- Trump – $135 million
Amount raised in August by broad affiliations:
- Harris: $361 million
- Trump;s: $130 million
Party Numbers in August:
- Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee – $22.3 million
- National Republican Campaign Committee – $9.7 million
Party Cash on Sept 1:
- Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee – $87.3 million
- National Republican Campaign Committee – $70.8 million
Comment: Harris is winning the purse campaign. Trump needs to open his game as the businessman, and unlock resources. Unlike 2016 where Trump won the digital ads battle, I see more Harris’ ads than Trump’s, possibly indicating that Trump is being outspent. May the best win.
Data sources: Federal Election Commission
(The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence; you are free NOT to believe the filings because you do not have copies)
Comment on Feed
Comment 1: It would great to see the previous trends of how spents have impacted the outcome of the elections. That would help to know if there is a correlation between spent and outcome and possibly predict the winner. Thanks for the insights Ndubuisi Ekekwe
Comment #2: While ad spending generally increases visibility and helps shape public perception, I also believe it cannot be the only factor determinant factor. Public opinion can often outweigh these metrics.
Ndubuisi Ekekwe it would be valuable to see how ad spending has influenced election outcomes in the past. If you have access to this data, we would greatly appreciate if you could share it with us, sir.
My Response: There is always a correlation that people are more invested in things they give money. In US primary elections, the strength of donation is an indication of the appeal and viability of any candidacy. If Harris was not raising money, that would have been an issue. That does not mean anything on election day. But it is better for people to give you money than not. I did not write that anyone will win because of the fundraising advantage, but I am making a case that at least, even if they do not want to vote for her, they are giving her more money than Trump! I do not see how this is a negative for Harris.
---
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA (Feb 10 - May 3, 2025), and join Prof Ndubuisi Ekekwe and our global faculty; click here.