Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

When presidential campaigns end, what happens to the leftover money?

Andrew Yang

"If there's anything left over after all the bills are paid, the candidate has a few options," explains Richard Briffault.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Briffault is a professor at Columbia Law School.

Andrew Yang and Michael Bennet are the latest Democrats who have ended their campaigns for president.

What happens to the money they have raised, but not yet spent?


The amounts could be substantial. Financial reports submitted to the Federal Election Commission indicate that as of Dec. 31, candidates who had already dropped out still had plenty in the bank. Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas dropped out Nov. 1, but at year's end still had $360,000 in the bank. Sen. Kamala Harris of California, who dropped out Dec. 3, reported having $1.3 million available.

Other candidates who dropped out in January had large sums on hand not long before they ended their campaigns: Former Housing Secretary Julian Castro had $950,000 on Dec. 31, and dropped out two days later. Less than two weeks before they exited, writer Marianne Williamson had $330,000 and Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey had $4.2 million.

I teach and write about campaign finance law. There is one clear rule about that money: Candidates can't use it for personal expenses, like mortgage payments, groceries, clothing purchases or vacations. But there are a lot of other options, both within politics and outside of it.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The first use for money from a candidate who has just quit the campaign is generally to pay the cost of winding things up. Just because someone announces they're out, their expenses don't stop right away. They may still owe rent on office space, as well as fees for services like polling and transportation and for staff salaries.

Some campaigns max out their credit cards, or take out loans to fill their accounts, and those still need to be repaid.

Candidates whose campaigns have ended but who are still handling outstanding expenses need to keep filing campaign finance reports with the FEC. Once those expenses are paid, there may not be much left.

At times, candidates need to keep fundraising after they drop out, just to pay off the bills they ran up while running. Six months after they dropped out of the 2012 presidential nomination race, failed Republican candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were still working to pay off their campaign debts. Former presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani, Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards took years to pay off their campaign debts.

Cory BookerCory Booker can use money left over from his presidential campaign to run for reelection to the Senate.AP Photo/Patrick Semanksy

If there's anything left over after all the bills are paid, the candidate has a few options.

For some politicians, the most likely use is to help pay for their next campaign. Booker, for instance, is up for reelection to his Senate seat. Once his presidential campaign has paid off any debts it may owe, he can transfer the remaining money to his senatorial reelection campaign fund.

If he, or any other candidate, wants to run for president again in the future, it's easy enough to transfer the funds to a committee for the 2024 campaign season.

A former candidate can also use any excess funds to create a so-called "leadership PAC," which is a political committee that can be controlled by the former candidate but is not used to support that person's campaigns. Instead, it backs a political agenda – including other candidates – the candidate supports. Leadership PACs have been criticized for functioning as "slush funds" for politicians to spend on travel and entertainment they can't buy with regular campaign donations.

Instead of using the money for the candidate's own political purposes, people who drop out can donate their money to other campaigns or candidates. There are no limits on how much they can give to a national, state or local party committee – such as the Democratic National Committee.

They can also give money to state and local candidates, depending on state campaign finance laws, or up to $2,000 to each of one or more candidates for federal office.

A former candidate can also donate surplus funds to charity. This seems most likely to occur when a candidate is retiring from public life. For instance, when he left the Senate Joseph Lieberman transferred funds from his campaign fund and his leadership PAC to a college scholarship fund for high school students from his state, Connecticut. He used other leftover campaign money to organize his political and campaign papers to donate to the Library of Congress.

A former candidate with excess funds has two more possibilities. She can do nothing at all and just keep the cash in the bank. In 2014, an analysis found ex-candidates, Republicans and Democrats alike, had as much as $100 million in unused campaign funds just waiting for account holders to decide what to do.

If the person really doesn't want all that cash on hand, the law is vague on what's next – it can be used "for any other lawful purpose," besides personal use. For example, former Democratic Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts helped fund a document archive for his former colleague, Barney Frank.

Read More

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

A roll of "voted" stickers.

Pexels, Element5 Digital

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

The analysis and parsing of learned lessons from the 2024 elections will continue for a long time. What did the campaigns do right and wrong? What policies will emerge from the new arrangements of power? What do the parties need to do for the future?

An equally important question is what lessons are there for our democratic structures and processes. One positive lesson is that voting itself was almost universally smooth and effective; we should applaud the election officials who made that happen. But, many elements of the 2024 elections are deeply challenging, from the increasingly outsized role of billionaires in the process to the onslaught of misinformation and disinformation.

Keep ReadingShow less
MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

A check mark and hands.

Photo by Allison Saeng on Unsplash. Unsplash+ License obtained by the author.

MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

Originally published by Independent Voter News.

Today, I am proud to share an exciting milestone in my journey as an advocate for democracy and electoral reform.

Keep ReadingShow less
Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less