In a final fundraising frenzy, Kamala Harris outspent Donald Trump nearly 2-to-1 in the last weeks of the 2024 campaign, proving that when it comes to campaign cash, she doesn't just raise eyebrows—she spends them.

Harris's campaign raised an impressive $160 million but went full budget-buster, spending $277 million from late October to late November, compared to Trump's more restrained $87 million raised and $113 million spent. While both candidates poured hefty sums into media buys, Harris splashed out $25.4 million on outreach and a staggering $45.5 million on event production—apparently believing that rallies featuring celebrities like Beyoncé come with a buy-one-get-one-free offer on votes. Meanwhile, Trump's campaign could barely afford a couple of SMS ads, leaving him drowning in a minor debt while Harris wrapped it all up debt-free, proving that sometimes, spending might just be the best form of campaigning after all.

In the realm of campaign finances, Harris's event expenses are particularly eye-catching. A cool $45.5 million went directly into production costs, which is hardly an amount to sneeze at—even if one is wearing a designer mask. Trump's budget for events came in at a mere $632,000, which might cover a small affair or, let’s be honest, a particularly extravagant birthday party for a child that forgot to invite half the class. Perhaps the strategy of garnering enthusiasm through a modest potluck didn’t quite resonate with his team.

However, what really seems to have clouded Trump's spending strategy was his campaign's reluctance to allocate resources for outreach. With only $3 million devoted to SMS advertising, it quickly became clear that his outreach strategy could use some major upgrades. Meanwhile, Harris not only got the message out; she got it out to the tune of a robust $25.4 million. It seems she understood that reaching voters in 2024 might require more than just a simple postcard, especially when competing against a campaign that’s fast asleep at the wheel—or at least not dialing up any phone banks.

Unsurprisingly, critics have raised eyebrows at the Harris campaign’s spending habits, particularly regarding its affinity for celebrity rallies. Between the lively tunes of Beyoncé echoing through packed arenas and the image of A-listers gracing platforms, the Harris campaign seems to have become a veritable who’s who of Hollywood. Harris spent more in the final weeks inviting stars to lend their glittery charm than Trump did on his entire outreach—well, if you don’t count the reminiscences from cheerleaders he found on YouTube. And let's not mention the $1 million dished out to Oprah Winfrey’s production company for just one pre-production and logistics for a livestream rally. At that rate, one can only wonder about the value of good lighting and dapper set designs in the campaign world.

After Biden announced he would not be running for re-election, Harris’s campaign saw a flood of financial support from various donors, perhaps out of sympathy or sheer star-struck enthusiasm. It appeared their wallets weren’t merely opening; they were practically running for the exit at high speed, motivated by her celebrity-fueled mission. Trump, conversely, seemed to have relatives—if not his wallet—holding back on contributions. One can’t help but ponder if a famous guest appearance by a Kardashian might have shifted matters in his favor.

In a dramatic twist, despite Harris’s whirlwind of spending, her campaign finished without any debt. Trump, however, found himself with a modest $10,000 in the negative, leaving many scratching their heads about where funds went awry. One could theorize that his spending plan involved keeping a tight lid on costs, but given that the strategy misfired spectacularly, it might be better to chalk it up to sheer optimism wrapped in wishful thinking.

Further complicating the situation was a delicate core issue in Harris’s camp involving the overall spending strategy leading to internal conflict regarding allocation of funds post-election. With the maverick spirit Harris exhibited through outlandish expenses and elaborate planning, it was inevitable that someone, somewhere was going to clutch their pearls when they realized how the pie was being sliced. Let’s just say that when celebrity appearances begin to dictate the flow of finances, tensions between the traditional campaign financiers and star-struck organizers can escalate at a comparable rate to ticket sales at an Ariana Grande concert.

As the dust settles from one of the most expensive campaigns in recent history, voters and operatives alike ponder the lasting impact of such extravagant fundraising stunts. For Harris, it may represent a dazzling experiment in the energy of celebrity politics, while Trump's rather austere approach leaves one questioning whether fiscal caution might indeed be the high road. Somewhere between the glitzy extravagance and the bare-knuckled frugality lies an interesting mix, that some might consider the new standard in campaign finance. After all, when everything is said and done, who doesn’t appreciate a little pizazz mixed in with their political discourse?