Vice President Kamala Harris’ recent election campaign, which ended in a loss to President-elect Donald Trump on November 5, reportedly cost $1 billion and left the campaign burdened with $20 million in debt.
The expenses, including significant spending on private flights and corporate services, have drawn sharp criticism.
Documents reveal that $2.6 million was spent on private flights in October alone, with $2.2 million paid to Private Jet Services Group and $430,000 to Advanced Aviation Team. Since July, flight expenses have exceeded $10 million.
Other notable expenditures include $1 million paid to Oprah Winfrey’s production company for a rally speech, $4 million to Village Marketing Agency for influencer outreach, and $15 million on event production.
These figures have raised questions about financial priorities during a campaign where funds largely went to corporate entities, agencies, and influencers, a sharp contrast to election practices in India.
In India, campaign spending often involves direct cash distribution to voters, a practice that, while not constitutionally permissible, injects money into the active economy.
Conversely, the U.S. system channels vast sums into corporate services, leaving voters out of the financial equation.
Critics argue that adopting the U.S. model in India could exacerbate inequality, benefiting wealthy corporations and influencers while depriving poor voters of monetary incentives they’ve come to expect during elections.
Whether in India or the U.S., election campaigns remain an extraordinarily expensive endeavor for candidates and political parties, highlighting the financial challenges of modern democracy.