The gun control lobby’s sugar daddy is now spending big to back Kamala Harris’ sputtering campaign, though some Democrats are complaining that the influx of Bloomberg Bucks is too late, if not too little.
According to the New York Times, Everytown for Gun Safety founder Michael Bloomberg recently gave $50 million to Future Forward USA Action, which the paper describes as the “dark-money vehicle of Future Forward, Ms. Harris’s main super PAC.”
Everytown has already pledged to spend at least $45 million this election cycle (including $9 million targeting state legislative races), and that’s without Bloomberg’s last-minute cash dump in Future Forward’s campaign coffers. In fact, beyond his donations to Everytown, Bloomberg previously gave Future Forward $20 million back in May, and another $10 million to the Democrats’ House Majority PAC.
So why is Bloomberg cutting another big check so late in the game? The New York Times tries to spin his latest donation as part of Bloomberg’s penchant for last-minute strategic donations, but it’s hard not to see the move as a sign of desperation for both himself and Kamala Harris.
When Mr. Biden endorsed Ms. Harris, Mr. Bloomberg issued a statement that pointedly did not, and he was dismissive of her capabilities in a private conversation at the time, according to a person who heard his remark.
Mr. Bloomberg slowly warmed up, speaking fondly of her at a dinner at the mansion of the business executive Ken Chenault in Sag Harbor around the time of the convention, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.
But despite detesting Mr. Trump, Mr. Bloomberg was initially reluctant to give more than the $19 million he donated to Future Forward’s super PAC in May. Associates said he believed there was not the same unmet need this year, given Ms. Harris’s fund-raising success. A better use of his money, he believed, might be initiatives in states to expand abortion access, which have received $5 million of his largess.
But a few weeks ago, Mr. Bloomberg met with Ms. Harris’s economic team at Bloomberg headquarters, and he gave his feedback on her economic and housing plan, said a person with knowledge of the meeting. Ms. Harris made a check-in phone call. The efforts were part of a concerted push to make Mr. Bloomberg feel appreciated by the party and its nominee. And then, finally, came the $50 million check.
Harris won’t have to worry about running short of campaign cash over the next eight days, but that doesn’t mean that all those Bloomberg Bucks heading her way will matter much in battleground states. Bloomberg spent a billion dollars on his own presidential campaign in 2020, and managed to win just one primary in American Samoa. According to POLITICO, Bloomberg spent a whopping $17 million for each of his delegates in 2020, which makes his “small” donation of $50 million to the Harris super PAC a mere pittance compared to his spending in the past few election cycles.
Bloomberg may not be a fan of Kamala Harris, but he absolutely loathes Trump. If he thought that Harris was doing just fine without his help, he’d have hung on to that $50 million or even given it to his pet gun control group to aid in its quest to elect more anti-gun candidates at all levels of government.
Bloomberg’s last-minute largesse is a sign of Harris’ weakness as we head into the home stretch of the campaign. Her closing pitch is labeling Trump and his supporters fascists and Nazis, while Tim Walz plays Madden with AOC in an inept attempt at attracting younger male voters.
Can Bloomberg’s $50 million help Harris in the final days of the campaign? Absolutely. But while money is important, it’s not everything in politics. If it were we’d be talking about President Bloomberg squaring off with Trump this year. His money may allow her to spread her message around, but that doesn’t really help her with her fundamental problems; including her flip-flops on almost every previously held position, her refusal to say she’d do anything different than Biden over the past 3 1/2 years while promoting herself as the candidate of “change”, and her extreme and longstanding hostility towards the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners.
