The decision by both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris to withhold disclosure of their leading campaign donors marks a significant departure from a long-standing transparency tradition in politics, leaving many to question how this will affect voter trust.
At a Glance
- Neither Vice President Harris nor former President Trump have disclosed their top campaign fundraisers for the current election cycle, breaking a tradition since 2000.
- Campaigns are not legally required to disclose bundlers unless they are registered federal lobbyists.
- Bundlers can raise substantial funds, which gives them significant influence and access to political candidates.
- The Trump campaign has multiple bundling tiers, with the highest being the million-dollar “Ultra MAGA.”
- The Biden-Harris campaign had similar bundling tiers in the past, offering perks like event invitations.
A Tradition Broken
For the first time since the turn of the century, neither Trump nor Harris have revealed their top campaign donors. Traditionally, presidential candidates have disclosed the names of these influential financial backers to promote transparency. This practice, initiated by President George W. Bush in 2000, has provided insight into the financial support behind political figures.
As veteran campaign finance expert Michael Beckel noted, “It would be a shame to see this good-government guardrail fall by the wayside during this momentous election in which so many voters are concerned about democracy and democratic norms.”
While there is no legal requirement for candidates to reveal information about campaign bundlers — unless they are registered as federal lobbyists — the tradition has endured as a courtesy to voters. Despite the change in campaign finance law post-Citizens United, which usurped many of the old boundaries governing campaign contributions, some argue that disclosure remains crucial. Bundlers, who can raise substantial funds, often gain enormous influence and access to political candidates.
Trump and Harris: The Tiered Approach
The campaigns have developed sophisticated fundraising strategies with numerous tiers. Trump’s includes an “Ultra MAGA” tier for those collecting seven-figure sums. Similarly, the Biden-Harris campaign implemented tiers rewarding donors with perks like event invitations. The lack of disclosed bundlers, while less influential in today’s landscape of SuperPACs that accept unlimited contributions, still represents a symbolic departure from transparency.
Significant financial backing has come into focus as billionaire Elon Musk, through America PAC, prominently supports Trump. Meanwhile, Harris has received substantial backing from Future Forward USA, a hybrid PAC with a partially undisclosed roster of donors. Such financing channels underscore how outside influences continue to impact both campaigns significantly.
The Road Ahead
The decision by Trump and Harris not to disclose their major financial supporters tests the waters of campaign transparency and sets a new precedent for future elections. As Beckel pointed out, the access gained by elite fundraisers is in stark contrast to the limited influence of ordinary voters.
“Elite fundraisers get access to politicians that ordinary voters can only dream of. By raising significant sums of money, they are gaining the ear of someone who is trying to become the most powerful person in the world,” Beckel noted.
Does this matter to you? Sound off in the comments.
