Harris' fundraising reestablishes Democrats' financial lead in the presidential race ... "In just a short time, Vice President Harris' candidacy has galvanized a history-making, broad, and diverse coalition - with the type of enthusiasm, energy, and grit that wins close elections," Harris campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez said. "As we enter the final stretch of this election, we're making sure every hard-earned dollar goes to winning over the voters who will decide this election."

The presidential money race is not entirely determined by candidate fundraising, with both sides also receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in support from super PACs. However, federal law requires television stations to sell ad time to candidates at the lowest rate possible, handing the candidate who raises the most cash a distinct advantage.

Where did all the "get money out of politics" people go?

Nowhere idiot, they're right here cheering this news. Harris didn't collect $361M majorily from big donors, she got it from voters in increments of $5 - $10 - $100 etc., encompassing tens of thousands.

Again, more proof you have no conception of America's electoral nuances that any normal politically-inclined citizen would as a matter akin to breathing.

$361 million divided by 3 million donors = $120.33 per donor.

"Harris didn't collect $361M majorily from big donors, she got it from voters in increments of $5 - $10 - $100 etc., encompassing tens of thousands."

link?

15
and?

But perhaps you have a better source.....

See above.

Most of the total could come from large donations.

#20

Now, having shown the total for the presidential election, donors can still give more if they haven't maxed out their limits for the primaries too, and direct giving to parties again has even higher limits.

But those numbers aren't included in the amount released stating the campaign's total.

#23

Thank you.

Where you'll discover no billionaires are interested in supporting Harris and further not trying to get her to drop an issue. Mm
We can take a wager on whether or not Harris drops this issue before the election.
Or whether she even takes up this issue once she takes office.
Think about it.
Harris knows this is a huge loser of an issue. No chance of it passing and she knows it

I wasn't questioning the veracity of the article. I'd read it when it was first printed and recognized the usual pattern of the uberwealthy and their endless quest to protect more of their lucre from taxation.

My issue was solely with the numbers of small donors compared to wealthier ones and how much of the $361 million came from small donors in comparison. Excuse me if I misinterpreted your point. But saying that there are wealthy people who don't want their taxes to go up is akin to saying the sun rises in the East. IMO, it's not news, it's normal.

And the larger point is that Kamala is now in the strongest position ever of rebuffing these donors because she can call on the millions not maxxed out in their giving instead of leaning on bundlers and high dollar fundraisers as Trump now finds himself wedded to for survival. And as he incoherently rambles in front of each group, even many there have to question why they're financially backing the losing horse in a two horse race.

And if I'm correct, and Trump's instigation and conduct around and regarding 1/6 becomes the defining issue that will cleave off enough usually Republican voters due to the literal tsunami of high profile rock-ribbed GOP conservatives publicly backing Harris over Trump's manifest unfitness, she likely won't feel any real pre-election pressure to bend to their wishes, knowing doing so would enrage much of her coalition on the left.

But I also don't disagree that she'll be pressured to a degree once in the White House, but a Democratic House/Senate or both doubtfully would feel the same regardless.