Since Kamala Harris succeeded Joe Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee, her campaign has utilized its substantial war chest to outspend Donald Trump’s campaign by over $47 million in digital advertising and more than $20 million on digital streaming services.

A report by The Daily Wire on Thursday highlighted that from July 25 to August 23, the Harris Victory Fund and Harris for President campaign invested $27,388,780 in Meta ads, compared to just $2,631,466 spent by the Trump National Committee Campaign. Harris’s campaign has been concentrating on key battleground states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Georgia. Meanwhile, Trump’s focus has been on Pennsylvania, particularly areas like Wilkes-Barre and Harrisburg, along with targeted efforts in Atlanta, Georgia, and Bozeman, Montana.

For YouTube ads, the Harris campaign spent $11,257,700 targeting states like California, New York, Texas, Florida, and Washington. Trump’s campaign allocated $5,393,600 for ads in Michigan, North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. Although Trump has spent significantly less than Harris, his strategy is almost entirely focused on battleground states, rather than states that are solidly Republican or strongly Democratic. Conversely, Harris’s campaign is investing heavily in states such as California and New York, which are unlikely to shift in favor of Trump.

*The Daily Wire* also pointed out that Democrats continue to criticize the Electoral College as the deciding factor in presidential elections, arguing that it is less democratic than a simple popular vote. By placing ads in reliably blue states, Harris may be attempting to win over the popular vote rather than relying solely on the Electoral College.

Harris is also leading in Google ad spending, allocating $18,933,100 on a mix of blue and red states, including California, New York, Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts. Trump’s campaign, on the other hand, spent $2,197,800 targeting California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Georgia. Harris also benefited from what Google referred to as “bugs” in July and August, where searches related to Trump’s attempted assassination would redirect users to information about Harris. Google called this a “bug” rather than a biased algorithm. Harris’s campaign took advantage of this by purchasing ads with modified news headlines to portray the vice president in a favorable light.

According to the Financial Times, the Harris campaign is also outspending Trump on digital streaming platforms such as Netflix, Hulu, and Peacock, as well as connected TVs like Roku. Harris has spent $56 million, nearly double Trump’s $30 million. The Harris campaign is preparing for a substantial advertising push after the Labor Day weekend, with a planned $370 million allocated for TV and digital streaming ads.

Trump’s reduced campaign spending compared to Harris is primarily due to the legal fees associated with multiple court cases brought against him by the Biden administration’s Department of Justice and other prosecutors. Despite this, Trump continues to rely on free publicity from his mass rallies, which are covered by mainstream media and widely shared on social media platforms with viewership often exceeding that of cable news networks. Even after a rally in Butler, PA, where an assassination attempt was reported, Trump’s enthusiasm for these events has not waned.