The Harris Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee set up by Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign with the Democratic National Committee, is still charging monthly recurring donors two months after Harris’ loss to Donald Trump. Some donors have expressed frustration with these ongoing charges, feeling that they were not explicitly asked for approval to continue their donations after the election.
While the Trump campaign faced backlash for tactics that made it difficult for donors to realize they were signing up for monthly automatic donations, the Harris Victory Fund situation is different. Donors knowingly signed up for monthly withdrawals, but the question remains whether these contributions should continue now that victory has slipped away.
Harris herself encouraged Democrats to “stay in the fight,” and while the Harris Victory Fund is now defunct, donations made through its page on ActBlue are redirected to the DNC. Some argue that this is unfair to donors who contributed to an entity with Harris’ name on it, as she will not have access to the funds for any potential future political endeavors.
Political professionals suggest that it should be a best practice to cease drawing on donor bank accounts after Election Day. The decision to continue tapping small-dollar donors post-election has been criticized as “shady” and akin to “grifting” by some.
However, others like Mike Nellis, head of the Democratic online fundraising firm Authentic, are comfortable with the DNC continuing to pull donations from Harris donors, as long as it is transparent to the donor and compliant with regulations.
The ongoing debate over the ethics of online fundraising and recurring donations highlights the complexities of political fundraising in the digital age. As the Harris Victory Fund charges continue to raise eyebrows, it remains to be seen how this situation will be resolved and what impact it will have on future fundraising practices in political campaigns.
