The New York Times article examines Vice President Kamala Harris's extravagant spending during her brief 15-week presidential campaign, which amounted to $1.5 billion despite ultimately culminating in a loss against President-elect Donald Trump. The campaign's aggressive financial strategy included massive expenditures on advertising, high-profile celebrity events, and extensive staffing, averaging $100 million weekly. While some party members are questioning the effectiveness of such lavish spending, especially the reliance on celebrity endorsements, evidence suggests that Harris's campaign still managed to perform better in battleground states compared to the national outcome. Despite this, there are lingering concerns about the campaign's financial aftermath and the lessons that need to be learned for future elections.

Key Points:

• Kamala Harris's campaign spent $1.5 billion in 15 weeks, with a weekly average of $100 million.
• The campaign was marked by significant advertising costs, totaling around $600 million, with nearly $494 million spent on media production and buying.
• High-profile events featuring celebrities like Lady Gaga and Oprah Winfrey contributed to lavish spending, with some events costing in the millions.
• The Harris team experienced internal questioning about the effectiveness of their financial strategy, especially regarding celebrity involvement.
• Despite the loss, Harris performed comparatively well in battleground states, but the results highlighted challenges within the Democratic brand and messaging.
• Post-election, the Harris operation faced financial pressures and reduced staff, raising questions about the campaign's future direction and any outstanding debts.
• Financial records indicated substantial donations to various party committees and organizations, raising issues about compensation transparency in political campaigns.
• Harris's campaign faced criticism for not using some high-performing ads despite ample funds, leading to strategic misfires in advertising.
• The article stresses that despite heavy spending, internal decision-making and strategic implementations were critical to the campaign's overall performance.
  Link to Article