Campaign Finance Laws Give Harris Big Boost in Biden Dropout Scenario (2024)

There does not at this moment seem to be any movement from the Biden campaign, the Biden family, or Joe Biden himself toward exiting the 2024 presidential race after last week’s disastrous debate. On the contrary, the campaign has its back up and is devising operatic strategies to get back in contention, dismissing the debate as a “bad night,” using surrogates to silence dissenters, and soldiering on. They were so proud of Biden’s Friday speech in North Carolina that they made a one-minute ad about it. Biden resents the elite opinion-makers calling for his ouster, and relishes the opportunity to show that they underestimated him again.

My sense in talking with people in a position to know is that it would take much more than what has already happened in public to get Biden to drop out. Team Biden surely hopes that the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling creates a “rally round the leader” effect that will continue to fade memories of a president who was wildly inarticulate and frail in a pressure scenario just five days ago.

That hasn’t stopped the endless fantasy league scenarios from those who see no avenue for Biden to defeat Donald Trump in November. Among these ideas is the concept of a quick-strike primary, just for Democratic National Convention delegates, leading up to an open convention at the DNC in Chicago in August. The Biden camp has actually engaged with this, warning of “chaos” if the president were to withdraw.

This is a tremendous insult to Kamala Harris, who Biden himself handpicked as his second in command. If the obvious line of succession from President to Vice President is not possible because of Harris’ presumed deficiencies, what does that say about the man who chose her? Or is it maybe why he chose her, to insulate himself from attack?

More from David Dayen

But all of this talk, and everyone’s feelings about Harris’s chances in a general election, is missing something: the main Biden campaign committee has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for the presidential election, invested in staff and booked airtime across the country. And the only person under campaign finance law who would be able to seamlessly continue to use that money for the general election is his ticket mate, Kamala Harris.

There’s been mostly handwaving about how difficult it would be for another candidate to come in and run his campaign from a standing start, with zero dollars and no campaign organization in late August. But it’s the primary reason why, practically speaking, Biden and Harris are really the only two choices available at this late stage of the campaign.

The experts at the Campaign Legal Center explained to the Prospect the scenarios for Biden campaign funding in the event of his withdrawal. The Biden for President campaign committee controls candidate contributions for the 2024 election. It has received $220 million up through May 31; we know that in the four days from last Thursday’s debate through Monday, the campaign committee raised another $33 million. As of May 31, the committee had $91.5 million in cash on hand.

If Biden, as candidate, wanted to contribute money from this account to another candidate for the presidency, he’s limited to $2,000 per election. If Biden withdraws, he could convert this campaign committee to a political action committee. In that case he could direct $3,300 to another candidate. These numbers, it must be said, are significantly smaller than what’s in the account. It’s simply not allowable for a presidential candidate to directly transfer millions of dollars to another candidate.

That brings up two options. First, the Biden PAC could operate an independent expenditure campaign on behalf of the new candidate. But that PAC would not be able to coordinate with the new candidate, and it would have significantly higher advertising rates for television commercials, for example, relative to direct candidate expenditures. This would have the effect of lopping off millions of dollars in terms of value.

The only person under campaign finance law who would be able to seamlessly continue to use Biden campaign money for the general election is Kamala Harris.

Second, Biden could refund all the remaining funds to donors, who could then make separate contribution to the new candidate’s campaign. But that would involve a complicated set of calculations. Money earmarked for the general election (like if a donor maxed out to the primary and the general election) should be unspent, so those donors would be first in line for refunds. Who gets the leftover funds, if any, is an open question, since at least some of it was spent. And whether or not donors redirect this money to the new candidate is completely up to them and not binding in any way. Donors could just take their money and keep it. The belief that all of that money would get over to the new candidate is somewhat wishful.

The only way these complications are nullified is if Vice President Harris is the nominee. Harris and Biden share this campaign committee, as the federal campaign finance laws allow for one fund when the president and vice president run on the same ticket. So if Harris succeeded Biden, she would control all the funds in the campaign committee and could use them in the election campaign.

The difference between these two scenarios is pretty significant. Either a series of steps with some degree of risk have to be undertaken to get money to a new candidate, or Harris can just use what’s in the account. Money matters a little less as you go up the political ladder—Donald Trump has a pretty sky-high name recognition and most people have formed their opinion of him—but if you are behind in the race, and especially if you need to boost your own profile, you can’t really do that without a well-resourced campaign. Only one person has guaranteed resources on day one, as well as an existing organization that doesn’t have to be instantly created or established.

I am not making a normative statement about Kamala Harris’ candidacy or how she would do as a presidential candidate. I’m merely saying that the realities of campaign finance bring us to a place where she would have an enormous advantage in a critical facet of a campaign over every other person in America. Like it or not, that makes it extremely difficult to opt for anyone else, should Biden drop out.

It is incredible that this has not been part of the public debate. Biden isn’t going anywhere right now, although polls over the next couple weeks may change that calculation. People are going through all kinds of reasons why or why not Harris would be the nominee in the aftermath. They barely touch the one that involves what legendary California politician Jesse Unruh called the mother’s milk of politics: money.

UPDATE: There is a possibility that the campaign committee funds could be transferred to the Democratic National Committee. But the DNC could then only give up to $5,000 directly to a candidate. It could use the funds on behalf of the candidate, but again the coordination and ad rate questions come up. And it is possible that Kamala Harris would have to comply with a transfer of those funds in that manner, in a scenario where she was just passed over for the top of the ticket.

David Dayen

David Dayen is the Prospect’s executive editor. His work has appeared in The Intercept, The New Republic, HuffPost, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and more. His most recent book is ‘Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power.’

Read more by David Dayen