President Joe Biden’s recent announcement endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris as his successor has sparked significant interest in the financial resources available to her campaign. Following Biden’s unexpected decision to step aside and support Harris for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, questions immediately arose about the campaign funds amassed during Biden’s reelection efforts. This article delves into the specifics of how much money the Harris campaign currently possesses, the legal framework surrounding these funds, and the potential challenges and opportunities this financial landscape presents as the election season intensifies.
As the Democratic Party prepares for its national convention, the financial health of the Harris campaign is a crucial factor. Can Vice President Harris access the substantial funds raised initially for President Biden’s reelection bid? Former President Trump has already initiated a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), challenging Harris’s right to utilize these funds, adding a layer of legal complexity to the situation.
To shed light on these intricate financial and legal aspects, we turn to the expertise of Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a renowned expert in election law. In a discussion with Harvard Law Today, Professor Stephanopoulos clarifies the nomination process, the accessibility of campaign funds for Vice President Harris, and the broader legal challenges that might emerge during this transition.
Nicholas Stephanopoulos
Credit: Jessica Scranton
Understanding the Transition of Campaign Funds to the Harris Campaign
Harvard Law Today: With President Biden withdrawing before the official nomination, can the Democratic Party simply shift its support and funds to Vice President Harris? How does this nomination process practically work in terms of campaign finance?
Nicholas Stephanopoulos: It’s essential to clarify that while President Biden was the presumptive nominee, he was not yet officially nominated by the Democratic Party. The formal nomination occurs at the party convention. Therefore, with President Biden’s withdrawal, the party is now able to formally nominate a different candidate, and currently, Vice President Harris is positioned to secure the majority delegate support required for the nomination at the upcoming convention in August. Crucially, because this change happened before the convention officially nominated President Biden, the process for transitioning support to Vice President Harris is significantly more straightforward. Had President Biden stepped down after the official nomination, the situation would be far more complex.
Regarding campaign funds, it’s important to distinguish between different types of financial support. Funds raised by Super PACs, party committees, and other supporting organizations operate independently. These entities can allocate their funds as they see fit, irrespective of whether the nominee is Biden or Harris. The key question revolves around the funds raised directly by the Biden-Harris campaign.
In the current scenario, Vice President Harris, as Biden’s endorsed successor, has effectively inherited the funds amassed by the Biden-Harris campaign. This amounts to approximately one hundred million dollars that are now under her campaign’s control. While some campaign finance legal experts have raised questions about the strict legality of this direct transfer, practically speaking, Vice President Harris has immediate access to these funds. Any legal challenges, such as the FEC complaint filed by the Trump campaign, are unlikely to be resolved swiftly enough to impede her campaign’s access to these resources before the election. Therefore, while legal debates may linger, the Harris campaign has inherited a substantial financial war chest.
The Legality and Timeline of Accessing Biden-Harris Campaign Funds
HLT: Can legal challenges realistically prevent the Harris campaign from using these inherited funds in the immediate lead-up to the election?
Stephanopoulos: While legal challenges, like the FEC complaint, can be initiated, the timeline of the FEC’s processes is critical here. The FEC is notoriously slow in resolving such matters. Currently, they are still addressing complaints from the 2016 election cycle. It is highly improbable that the FEC will reach a decision on the legality of Vice President Harris inheriting these campaign funds before the upcoming November election. The legal questions surrounding the transfer of funds when a presidential candidate withdraws pre-convention, and the vice-presidential candidate steps up, are novel and complex. An official legal resolution is unlikely to emerge in the near term.
HLT: When individuals donate to a “ticket,” such as the Biden-Harris ticket, how are those donations legally categorized? Were donations made previously specifically for President Biden, or for the Biden-Harris campaign entity as a whole?
Stephanopoulos: Donations to the “Biden-Harris campaign” technically support the joint campaign for both president and vice president. This distinction becomes important when considering scenarios where someone other than the vice-presidential candidate becomes the nominee. For example, if Gavin Newsom had become the nominee instead of Vice President Harris, the Biden-Harris campaign funds could not be directly transferred to a Newsom campaign. In such a case, these funds would likely be channeled to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) or another party committee. While these entities could utilize the funds to support the new nominee, they would have to do so through independent expenditures, not direct contributions to the candidate’s campaign.
HLT: So, the selection of Kamala Harris as the nominee, as opposed to another individual, has a significant impact on the immediate access to and control over these substantial campaign funds?
Stephanopoulos: Precisely. The key difference lies in who directly controls the funds. If someone other than Vice President Harris were nominated, the funds would likely reside with the DNC and be used for independent expenditures supporting the nominee. However, with Vice President Harris as the nominee, she directly controls the Biden-Harris campaign funds, providing her campaign with immediate and direct access to these resources. This direct control is a considerable advantage in terms of campaign strategy and resource allocation.
HLT: Could you elaborate on the difference between direct contributions and independent expenditures in campaign finance?
Stephanopoulos: Let’s consider the hypothetical scenario of Gavin Newsom becoming the nominee with funds remaining in the Biden-Harris account. Those funds could not be directly given to the Newsom campaign. Instead, they could be transferred to the DNC. The DNC, in turn, could not directly contribute these funds to the Newsom campaign either. However, the DNC could utilize these funds to independently run advertisements promoting Newsom, highlighting his strengths, and criticizing his opponents. This would be classified as independent spending, legally distinct from a direct campaign contribution. In the current situation, with Vice President Harris likely to be the nominee, this complex workaround is avoided as her campaign directly inherits the existing funds.
Ballot Access and Potential Legal Challenges to the Nomination
HLT: Are there state-level legal hurdles, such as ballot access laws, that could complicate the transition to Vice President Harris as the nominee? For instance, concerns were raised about Ohio’s ballot access deadlines.
Stephanopoulos: Given that the transition to Vice President Harris is occurring before the official nomination, ballot access issues are unlikely to pose significant legal challenges. Vice President Harris will essentially step into the legal position President Biden would have occupied. The Democratic Party will conduct a roll call vote of delegates on August 7th, which will formally nominate Vice President Harris. This process mirrors the process that would have nominated President Biden, ensuring a seamless legal transition in terms of ballot access.
The Ohio situation arose due to the Democratic Convention’s relatively late date this year, which initially conflicted with Ohio’s deadline for naming nominees on the general election ballot. However, the early roll call vote resolves this issue by formally nominating Vice President Harris before the Ohio deadline. Furthermore, Ohio has since amended its law, extending the nominee disclosure deadline to September 1st, rendering the previous concern irrelevant.
HLT: Beyond ballot access and campaign finance complaints, do you anticipate any other legal attempts to obstruct the nomination change or the Harris campaign’s momentum?
Stephanopoulos: Regarding ballot access, there is virtually no plausible legal basis for challenges. Vice President Harris assumes the identical legal standing President Biden would have held, and no deadlines have been or will be missed. Therefore, court interventions concerning ballot access are highly improbable.
In campaign finance, as mentioned, the novelty of a vice-presidential candidate inheriting funds in this specific pre-convention scenario might lead to FEC complaints. However, the crucial factor is the FEC’s protracted resolution process. Any FEC decision is unlikely to materialize before the November election, meaning these legal challenges are unlikely to practically impede the Harris campaign’s financial operations in the immediate election cycle.
Broader Context: Campaign Finance Disparities and Regulations
HLT: Stepping back to the broader landscape of campaign finance, we see examples like Elon Musk reportedly donating substantial sums to Super PACs supporting former President Trump, while individual contributions to campaigns are capped. Can you explain this disparity in the context of campaign finance law?
Stephanopoulos: Our campaign finance system, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, establishes a fundamental distinction between campaign contributions and campaign expenditures. The Court has ruled that governments can regulate contributions to campaigns but have significantly less authority to regulate independent expenditures. When Elon Musk donates to a Super PAC, these funds are considered campaign expenditures, as Super PACs are legally supposed to operate independently of a candidate’s campaign. This independent expenditure status places them outside the regulatory limits applicable to direct campaign contributions.
Conversely, direct contributions to a candidate’s campaign, like donations to the Biden-Harris campaign or the Trump campaign, fall under the category of campaign contributions and are subject to federal limits, such as the individual contribution limit of approximately $3,300. This legal framework, established in the 1970s and shaped by Supreme Court decisions, has created this two-tiered system. While Congress initially intended to regulate both contributions and expenditures to prevent undue influence of large sums of money, the Supreme Court’s interpretation has created loopholes that allow for substantial independent spending in political campaigns.
HLT: Is there similar scrutiny and transparency applied to Super PAC expenditures as there is to presidential campaign expenditures and contributions?
Stephanopoulos: Super PAC expenditures are tracked and disclosed. The positive aspect of Super PACs is the requirement to disclose their donors and expenditures. This provides a degree of transparency, allowing the public to see where their funding originates and how it is spent. However, other types of political organizations, often referred to as “dark money” groups, are subject to fewer disclosure requirements. Despite the disclosure associated with Super PACs, they remain a primary vehicle for wealthy individuals seeking to exert significant influence in electoral politics due to the absence of contribution limits on donations to these entities.
In conclusion, while legal challenges and debates surrounding the Harris campaign’s access to Biden-Harris campaign funds may persist, expert analysis suggests that these are unlikely to impede the campaign’s financial resources in the crucial months leading up to the election. The Harris campaign has inherited a substantial financial base, positioning them to compete effectively in the upcoming presidential race.
