Vice President Kamala Harris is raising money for a recount, but doesn’t appear likely to ask for one since deadlines have passed for such requests in most battleground states.
The Harris campaign raised more than $1 billion in the Democratic presidential nominee’s bid to defeat former President Donald Trump, but reportedly ended up with $20 million in debt.
Raising money for a recount without any apparent intent to ask for one is likely acceptable under campaign laws, according to the Federal Election Commission.
Some on the Left have clamored for a recount in the Harris-Trump contest.
The liberal organization Free Speech for People and at least one national liberal talk host, Thom Hartman, pushed for a recount. So have Democrats on social media, as a last gasp of hope of preventing Trump from beginning a second term Jan. 20.
Harris, who became the nominee after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race, lost both the popular vote and electoral vote to Trump. He defeated her in all seven swing states. The vice president conceded the race Nov. 6.
The Harris Victory Fund reportedly is a joint fundraising committee authorized by the Harris campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and state Democratic parties.
“The first $41,300/$15,000 from a person/multicandidate committee (“PAC”) will be allocated to the DNC,” the Harris Victory Fund says. It then adds: “The next $3,300/$5,000 from a person/PAC will be allocated to Harris for President’s Recount Account.”
Last week, a group of cybersecurity experts and someone from Free Speech for People asked Harris to seek a recount, alleging a data breach in voting systems. Their letter specifically asked the vice president to seek a recount in the most closely contested states—Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
However, the deadline to request a recount in Wisconsin—the closest state, where Trump won by less than 1%—passed on 5 p.m. Tuesday, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission.
Nevada law requires a recount to be requested within 14 days after an election, a deadline that also passed Tuesday, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In Pennsylvania, where a recount of the Senate race occurred, a petition for a recount must be filed within 20 days after an election, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Harris technically would have until Monday to request one.
Michigan recount deadlines aren’t specified, according to the NCSL. But a website on election procedures, Verified Voting, says that Michigan law requires that a campaign’s recount petition must allege a candidate is “aggrieved on account of fraud or mistake in the canvass of the votes by the inspectors of election or the returns.” The candidate also must be “able to allege a good-faith belief that but for fraud or mistake, the candidate would have had a reasonable chance of winning the election.”
Harris was vacationing in Hawaii this week after her loss to Trump. The vice president’s office didn’t respond to inquiries from The Daily Signal for this story.
The Harris campaign and the Democratic National Committee also didn’t respond to inquiries for this story.
A campaign that establishes a recount fund isn’t required to seek a recount under Federal Election Commission guidelines or campaign finance laws.
Asked whether a campaign or candidate may redirect such funds raised for a recount for other purposes, an FEC press officer directed The Daily Signal to a March 2019 advisory opinion for the campaign of former Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who lost a close 2018 race to Republican challenger Rick Scott.
The FEC determined that it wouldn’t violate the Federal Election Campaign Act if Nelson’s campaign donated excess money from a recount fund to a charity, or to a national party committee.
“The commission concluded that the proposed disposal of surplus recount funds is consistent with the act since neither the charitable donation nor the donation to the national party’s recount account would be made to influence a federal election,” the FEC advisory opinion said. “Therefore, the use would not constitute a contribution or expenditure under the act or regulations.”
[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by The Daily Signal.]
