For most of the past three years, Vice President Kamala Harris has struggled with low approval ratings, often falling below those of President Biden. Her association with the administration’s controversial open border policies has been a significant factor in her unpopularity.
Given her performance, it wouldn’t have been surprising if Biden had chosen to replace her on the ticket with a more competent candidate. Had that scenario occurred, and had Harris claimed the right to the campaign’s funds, she would likely have been dismissed outright.
The campaign funds were raised under the “Biden for President” banner, without Harris’s name included in any of the financial disclaimers or fundraising committee notices.
Donors contributed with the understanding that their money was for Biden’s campaign, not Harris’s. This distinction is crucial, especially considering Harris’s unpopularity, which may have deterred donations if her involvement had been explicitly stated.
When President Biden announced his withdrawal from the presidential race due to health reasons, the Harris team swiftly amended the campaign’s Federal Election Commission (FEC) Statement of Organization.
The amendment rebranded the campaign as “Harris for President,” while bizarrely maintaining the original email address, fec@joebiden.com.
This unprecedented maneuver lacks clear legal backing, and FEC Chairman Sean Cooksey noted that it “raised a host of open questions about whether it is legal.” Cooksey’s diplomatic language reflects the complexity of the issue and the FEC’s need to thoroughly evaluate forthcoming complaints.
However, due to procedural and timing issues, the FEC might not be able to act swiftly enough to address the concerns before the election.
The Harris campaign appears aware of the FEC’s limitations, possibly drawing lessons from the prolonged legal battles faced by Correct the Record and the Hillary Clinton campaign. The recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit regarding illegal coordination took eight years to resolve.
The Harris team likely believes that any penalties for misusing Biden’s campaign funds would be delayed for years, well past the upcoming election.
While the FEC typically regulates federal campaign fundraising, state attorneys general with consumer protection mandates could intervene in cases of deceptive practices. The funds in question were raised specifically for Biden, and according to 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(b)(3), contributions for the general election must be returned if the candidate does not participate in it. Donors expected refunds if Biden did not become the nominee, but instead, the Harris campaign seems poised to use these funds without returning them.
This situation potentially constitutes fraud, as defined under state laws. In 2021, Democratic attorneys general from Maryland, Connecticut, Minnesota, and New York jointly emphasized that “political donors have the right to be safe from fraud and deception.”
The transfer of funds from the Biden campaign to the Harris campaign without donor consent or notification fits this description and warrants investigation.
In summary, the controversy over the Harris campaign’s use of Biden’s funds raises serious legal and ethical questions. The actions taken by the Harris team could be seen as deceptive, potentially amounting to fraud. As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen whether state or federal authorities will take action to address these concerns and ensure the integrity of campaign finance practices.