CNN
—
Elon Musk plowed nearly $44 million in October into a super PAC working to restore Donald Trump to the White House – pushing the billionaire’s total donations to the group he established to benefit the former president to nearly $119 million, new campaign finance reports show.
The last-minute burst of spending by the world’s richest man comes as Trump’s Democratic rival, Vice President Kamala Harris, continues to lap the former president in fundraising, bringing in about $97 million – six times the amount collected by Trump in the first 16 days of October, according to reports the campaigns filed late Thursday night with the Federal Election Commission.
But both candidates and their aligned political operations went on a spending spree this month – burning through more than half a billion dollars combined during the first half of October as they jockey for advantage ahead of Election Day.
Here are some key takeaways from the filings:
Harris’ principal campaign committee spent nearly $166 million between October 1 and 16, exceeding the Trump campaign’s $99.7 million in expenditures during the same period. Roughly $130 million of Harris’ campaign spending went toward media expenses.
And the blistering fundraising pace Harris set after ascending to the top of the Democratic ticket at the end of July has given her a bigger financial cushion in the final days of the race. The nearly $119 million remaining in her campaign’s coffers is more than three times the dollars that Trump had remaining in his.
And data from AdImpact, which tracks political advertising, underscores how Harris has put that financial advantage to work on the airwaves in battleground states. Her campaign has spent about $488 million on advertising since President Joe Biden withdrew from the race, including on ads slated to run through Election Day. By contrast, Trump has spent about $284 million over the same period.
Musk aids Trump and Senate Republican candidates, too
Musk has emerged as a major financial figure in this year’s election – underwriting an unorthodox get-out-the-vote effort on Trump’s behalf in key battleground states – a role that the former president has largely ceded to outside groups. In recent days, Musk also offered splashy, $1 million daily sweepstakes for swing-state voters that has drawn scrutiny from the US Justice Department.
The new filings show the tech magnate made four donations totaling $43.6 million to his America PAC in the first half of October. He also wrote checks totaling $12.3 million to other super PACs mostly supporting efforts by Republicans to take control of the Senate.
Before this election, the Tesla CEO and X owner had made relatively modest donations to federal candidates, backing a mix of Democrats and Republicans. But he is deeply engaged in helping Trump win the presidency this time and has joined the Republican nominee on the campaign trail.
Thursday’s filings show that Musk’s super PAC drew other donors in October. Billionaire businessman Nelson Peltz gave $1 million to America PAC and members of the Michigan-based DeVos family, including Trump’s Education secretary, Betsy DeVos, also made six-figure donations.
Other large donors backing Trump include Midwestern packaging magnate Richard Uihlein, who contributed another $6.5 million this month to the super PAC he steers – Restoration PAC, which has been spending heavily in support of Trump’s candidacy. Uihlein, whose family helped found Schlitz Brewing, has long backed conservative, anti-establishment candidates and has emerged as one of the biggest financial backers to pro-Trump efforts this cycle.
Uihlein’s wife, Elizabeth, donated $3 million in October to another pro-Trump group, Preserve America, which has been largely funded by billionaire Miriam Adelson, a physician and widow of casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Ronald Cameron, who oversees poultry-producing giant Mountaire Farms, donated $2 million to Preserve America.
WhatsApp co-founder Jan Koum, meanwhile, became one of the latest tech figures to support Trump’s campaign, giving $5 million worth of stock in social media giant Meta to Make America Great Again, Inc., the main super PAC backing Trump, the new filings show. He had previously donated to a super PAC supporting Nikki Haley’s failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination.
MAGA, Inc., also took in $1 million apiece from Arkansas-based investor Warren Stephens and pharmaceutical heir Woody Johnson, who co-owns the New York Jets and served as Trump’s ambassador to the United Kingdom.
Top donors to Future Forward, a super PAC supporting Harris, include Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, who gave $25 million to the group in the first half of October, bringing his total giving to the group to $38 million.
But a substantial portion of the nearly $90 million collected by the pro-Harris super PAC over the period – a total of $40 million – came from Future Forward’s nonprofit arm, which does not disclose its donors, obscuring from the public the identity of some of Harris’ backers.
The new filings also show that Liz Cheney, the former Wyoming congresswoman who has broken with her fellow Republicans to back Harris, isn’t just campaigning with the vice president. Cheney’s political action committee, Our Great Task, donated $2.5 million on October 8 to American Bridge 21st Century, a leading Democratic research and rapid response group working to help Harris.
Even as Trump raises money for his presidential campaign, his political operation continues to underwrite the former president’s legal bills.
Between October 1 and 16, Save America, the former president’s leadership PAC, spent $3.9 million on “legal consulting,” records show. The lion’s share of the money, nearly $3.3 million, went to Robert & Robert. Clifford Robert, the firm’s principal, is one of the lawyers representing Trump in his appeal of his civil fraud judgment in New York.
Interview with Political Analyst Sarah Johnson on Recent Campaign Financing Trends
Interviewer: Welcome, Sarah! Thank you for joining us today to discuss the recent developments in campaign financing ahead of the upcoming election. There has been a noteworthy increase in donations to both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris from prominent figures, including billionaires. What’s your initial takeaway from these recent filings?
Sarah Johnson: Thank you for having me! It’s striking to see the sheer scale of donations this election cycle. Billionaires like Elon Musk have significantly ramped up their contributions, with Musk alone donating nearly $44 million in October. This suggests a high level of financial commitment to influencing the election outcome, particularly for Trump.
Interviewer: Indeed, Musk’s donations have raised eyebrows. He has also been actively working on innovative get-out-the-vote efforts. How do you think his involvement will impact Trump’s campaign?
Sarah Johnson: Musk’s involvement can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, his financial backing provides critical resources for the campaign, especially in battleground states. However, his unconventional methods may attract scrutiny and backlash. It could energize Trump’s base but also alienate moderate voters who might be wary of Musk’s antics.
Interviewer: On the other side of the aisle, Kamala Harris has seen a tremendous influx of funding as well, notably from tech giants like Dustin Moskovitz. What does this tell us about her campaign strategy?
Sarah Johnson: Harris’s campaign has effectively capitalized on her rising profile, especially after Biden’s withdrawal. The fact that she’s attracted major donations highlights her appeal within progressive and tech circles. It indicates that her campaign is focused on leveraging this funding to dominate media presence, as evidenced by her significant ad spending—$130 million on media alone.
Interviewer: There seems to be a stark contrast in fundraising strategies between the two candidates. While Trump is heavily funded by a select few billionaires, Harris has a broader base of support. How might this affect their campaigns as we approach Election Day?
Sarah Johnson: That’s a critical observation. Trump’s campaign relies on substantial contributions from a small group of wealthy backers, which can be risky. In contrast, Harris is building a more diverse funding base, which may provide her with a more sustainable advantage. However, both candidates will need to translate these financial resources into effective voter engagement and turnout to secure victory.
Interviewer: As we look at spending trends, it’s been reported that both candidates have already burned through over half a billion dollars combined. What does this aggressive spending reflect about the state of the race?
Sarah Johnson: It underscores the high-stakes nature of this election. Both candidates are aware that winning substantial voter support requires extensive outreach and media coverage. The aggressive spending indicates a fierce battle for attention and influence, particularly in swing states where every vote counts.
Interviewer: Last question: With the emphasis on money in politics, do you think there’s a risk of public disenchantment with the election process due to this overwhelming focus on funding?
Sarah Johnson: Absolutely. The primacy of money in politics can lead to voter apathy and feelings of disenfranchisement, especially if people believe their voices are overshadowed by billionaire donors. Moving forward, transparency in donations and campaign spending will be crucial to rebuilding trust in the electoral process.
Interviewer: Thank you, Sarah, for your insights. This election cycle promises to be both thrilling and complex, and we appreciate your expertise.
Sarah Johnson: Thank you for having me! It’s going to be an interesting few weeks ahead.
That both candidates are making substantial investments in advertising and outreach efforts. Given the pressing timeline until the election, how crucial do you believe these expenditures will be in swaying undecided voters?
Sarah Johnson: The timing and scale of these expenditures are extremely important. In the final weeks leading up to the election, advertising can significantly shape public perception and influence undecided voters. Harris’s heavy spending on media is a strategic move to saturate the airwaves and ensures her message reaches voters in key battleground states. Conversely, while Trump is also spending heavily, his reliance on a narrower donor base might limit the flexibility and adaptability of his campaign spending. It’s all about reaching voters at the right moment and converting interest into votes.
Interviewer: Speaking of battleground states, how crucial are these geographical areas for both candidates in their quest for the presidency?
Sarah Johnson: Battleground states are pivotal in any presidential election, often determining the overall outcome. For Harris, strong investment in these areas might not only bolster her chances of winning those states but could also contribute to a broader Democratic turnout. For Trump, maintaining a solid presence in these states is equally essential. His strategy, especially with Musk’s unconventional tactics in campaigning, could either galvanize enthusiasm or risk alienating moderate voters in those critical areas.
Interviewer: And as we explore the dynamics of financing in this election, do you think the increasing influence of billionaires will alter the landscape of campaign financing in the future?
Sarah Johnson: Undoubtedly, the role of billionaires in campaign financing is growing, and it raises important questions about the accessibility of political processes for average voters. Their significant contributions can skew the dynamics of competition, favoring candidates who align closely with their interests. This trend could lead to increased calls for campaign finance reform, as the public becomes more aware of the disparities in funding and influence. Ultimately, the ongoing debate about money in politics will be crucial in shaping the future of electoral systems in the U.S.
Interviewer: Thank you, Sarah, for your insights. It’s clear that this election cycle is not just about the candidates but also about the vast sums of money flowing into their campaigns. We’ll be keeping a close eye on how these strategies play out as we get closer to Election Day.
