Kamala Harris has dropped out of the 2020 presidential race. As the election nears, candidates will continue to drop out or be voted out of the running as the caucuses and primaries begin in February 2020. A few months before the election, the candidates will be narrowed down to a single competitor for each party. One Democratic and one Republican candidate will remain to battle it out until the big day in November.

Until then, the race consists of speeches, appearances, debates, marketing and advertisements. Of course, none of this would be possible without one thing: money.

In a Twitter video announcing the end of her campaign, Harris said, “I’m not a billionaire. I can’t fund my own campaign. And as the campaign has gone on, it’s become harder and harder to raise the money we need to compete.”

Money doesn’t directly lead to a victory, but it certainly helps. It’s no secret that campaigns are expensive; the travel cost alone is staggering. Funds for a campaign are either provided by the candidate themselves, from donations or through government funding. Candidates must be eligible to receive government funding, essentially meaning they must be the final candidate of their party after the primaries. Sometimes, eligible third party candidates may receive help.

But, really, where does the money go?

An unforeseen expense is paying those who aid the campaign: managers, political consultants, activists, etc. People are committed to campaigns, and it essentially acts as a job for the duration of the race. Some candidates continue their current political duties, and some don’t. Either way, those who help the candidate receive some income from their efforts.

A chunk of funds is also thrown to advertising. For example, President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign spent 70% of funds on advertising and Mitt Romney’s campaign used 55%. However, ads are unreliable in garnering support or dissent for a particular candidate. The candidates for presidential elections are usually well-known enough that advertising does little to boost their images.

But at this point, money is usually not an issue. Supporters, and therefore their funds, are funneled into one candidate. Money and a steady income of funds matter for start-up campaigns. Unknown candidates or those with limited means are dependent on donations and other outside funds. Without it, they are forced to drop the race.

Theoretically, the more support a candidate has should lead to more funds, operating the notion that supporters will want to help their candidate’s campaign. Yet, this thinking is problematic, particularly for candidates who appeal to people of low socioeconomic status. They may not be able to provide the donations necessary to sustain a campaign.

From this, the more money a candidate has at their disposal can lead to a larger and better campaign team. This may not ensure victory, but it is a leg up on the opposition.

So, yes, money affects the presidential race and individual campaigns during the process, but more importantly, it limits candidates from continuing their run or starting in the first place. If funds weren’t any issue, I’m sure more politicians would run. In the end, it limits who can represent the people and speak for the country.

Unfortunately, a solution is hard to come by. The government should not be entirely responsible for funding campaigns, and limits cannot be placed on a candidate’s personal funds either. It is their decision to decide how much they want to spend. Supporters also aren’t required to donate—many don’t—because, they too, get to choose where to spend their money.

If anything, maybe the way presidential campaigns are run needs to change. Acting in the age of technology, candidates can reach certain demographics through the internet for free. This is a way to save money, but would it actually be effective in garnering support? With more campaigns operating this way, money’s position in the presidential race could be reduced, and hopefully, that would encourage more politicians to run and keep current candidates in the running.

After all, candidates should be eliminated because of the lack of support or interest in their campaign, not because they cannot afford to continue.

Maddie Peters can be reached at pete9542@stthomas.edu.