A friend at work has played in bands for years, and he’s done his fair share of charity gigs. His bands never charged a penny for these events because, as he put it, the cause was more important than profit. Like him, plenty of people volunteer their time and resources to make a positive impact, whether for their families, communities, or even the country. They don’t do it for the money; they do it because they genuinely care.
Recently, my friend and I got on this topic after reading headlines about the Kamala Harris campaign paying $1 million for Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement. Winfrey, like many celebrities, has been vocal about what she describes as an “existential threat to democracy” posed by Donald Trump. In 2024, she warned that if Americans didn’t “show up tomorrow,” they might lose their right to vote entirely.
READ MORE: Oprah Warns a Trump Victory Means No Elections Ever Again
This is what frustrated my friend and I. If the threat to democracy was so dire, why would Oprah need to be paid to give out her endorsement? Wouldn’t the good of the country necessitate that you use all the resources you have in order to save democracy if someone like Trump was going to destroy it all and set himself up as a dictator?
You and I know the answer: The “threat to democracy” angle was nonsense. It was just a political talking point meant to scare people into not voting for Trump and voting for her. As I’ve noted previously, that backfired spectacularly – people who felt democracy was very much under threat were more likely to vote for Trump than Harris.
Kamala Harris’s Campaign Spending on Celebrity Endorsements
The reality, of course, is that the “threat to democracy” angle was just another political talking point. It was a tactic to stoke fear and sway people away from voting for Trump. But ironically, this rhetoric may have backfired. According to polling data, many voters who genuinely felt democracy was at risk ended up supporting Trump instead of Harris. The more the campaign pushed the “save democracy” message, the more skeptical some voters became.
It wasn’t just Oprah’s $1 million endorsement that raised eyebrows. As reported by Fox News and the New York Post, the Harris campaign spent as much as $20 million on a series of last-minute concerts in key swing states, aimed at boosting voter turnout. The lineup was packed with major stars—Jon Bon Jovi in Detroit, Christina Aguilera in Las Vegas, Katy Perry in Pittsburgh, Lady Gaga in Philadelphia, and even a performance by 2 Chainz in Atlanta days before the election.
The Role of Celebrity Concerts in Political Campaigns
Yes, I know how much it costs to put on a concert, and these high-profile artists have every right to charge for their time. But let’s be honest—each of these stars is wealthy enough to contribute financially if they believed the stakes were as high as they claimed. If they truly thought democracy was in peril, would they really need to be compensated by the Harris campaign? The fact that they didn’t feel compelled to offer these performances out of their own pocket calls into question just how seriously they took the supposed “threat” of Donald Trump.
This spending frenzy on concerts and celebrity endorsements raises another question: were these funds really the best use of resources? It’s no secret that Kamala Harris struggled to energize some key demographic groups. Many potential supporters didn’t switch to Trump—they simply stayed home. The campaign might have benefited more from grassroots outreach and mobilization efforts instead of spending millions on star-studded events.
Is Celebrity Support Genuine When Money’s Involved?
There’s a disconnect when public figures claim to stand for something important—like “saving democracy”—but expect to be paid handsomely for their endorsement. When people volunteer for a cause, it shows they believe in it deeply. But when celebrities need a check to take a stand, it starts to feel like theater rather than genuine concern.
The million-dollar endorsements and concert fees suggest that, for some, the message may be less about “saving democracy” and more about maintaining political influence or public image.
The Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality in the Harris Campaign
If the Kamala Harris campaign and its celebrity supporters truly believed that Trump posed an existential threat, wouldn’t their actions reflect that urgency? The reality is that their behavior was more about projecting an image of solidarity than making any personal sacrifices.
Instead of funding concerts, they could have focused on grassroots initiatives to drive voter turnout, particularly in communities that felt disconnected from mainstream politics.
Actions Speak Louder Than Political Rhetoric
At the end of the day, political campaigns often rely on big names and flashy events to make headlines. But voters aren’t easily fooled. When celebrities warn of an imminent threat to democracy, then demand a check for their endorsement, it makes people question their sincerity. If the cause is important, the commitment should be real—and that means going beyond paid appearances.
Perhaps if the Harris campaign had put more effort into authentic engagement instead of relying on million-dollar endorsements and high-priced concerts, they wouldn’t have seen such low voter turnout from their own base. Political theater might look good in the headlines, but it rarely wins over the people who matter most: the voters.
