A look at the Harris campaign's outreach to the tech sector, as it tries to convince companies that she'll chart her own course while avoiding policy specifics
they are not convincing independents with their current strategy Scott Kupor / @skupor : “Being more specific could test the party's cohesion. Replacing enforcement officials whom big donors don't like, said Dan Geldon, Warren's former chief of staff, would 'send a signal to every federal enforcer that if they go after the rich and powerful, they are at risk of Wendy R. Anderson / @wendyranderson : Interesting, must-read @washingtonpost article by @Cat_Zakrzewski @nitashatiku & @lizzadwoskin - Inside the Harris campaign's blitz to win back Silicon Valley: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... @katrinanation : Harris blitz to win back Silicon Valley.Replacing enforcement officials whom big donors don't like,said Warren's former chief of staff,would “send signal to every federal enforcer that if they go after rich & powerful,they're at risk of losing their jobs.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... Avi Asher-Schapiro / @aaschapiro : Nice details in this WaPo report on the meetings between tech execs & the Harris camp . Team Harries has been: “reminding tech execs that [Harris] ran against Warren in the 2020 primaries, when Warren made antitrust action against tech a wedge issue.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... @scribe_light : The Tech Industry? At this late date in the election, is winning back ‘the tech industry’ really a priority? #Election2024 Jason Kint / @jason_kint : Good report. My two cents is that if you're going to place Dan into the story based on his work for Sen Warren then you should also label Hoffmann as a board member of Microsoft. [image]
Context & Ripple Effects
The outreach follows a summer effort to rebuild Silicon Valley relationships: Harris drew a large San Francisco tech audience in August, while some investors had framed her candidacy as a potential reset after bipartisan scrutiny of Big Tech.
That opening was complicated by divided political allegiances. Ben Horowitz's planned personal donation to Harris underscored that prominent tech backers could move toward her even after earlier support for Trump.
First-order effects
- The Harris campaign can deepen conversations with tech executives and donors without immediately binding itself to specific technology, competition, or enforcement positions.
- The lack of detail leaves companies seeking policy certainty with little more than an assurance that Harris would not simply inherit a fixed posture.
Second-order effects
- Campaign officials gain room to hold together tech-friendly donors and party constituencies that may disagree over enforcement, but that flexibility also makes it harder for companies to price in a prospective regulatory environment.
- The reported concern over replacing unpopular enforcers makes personnel choices a focal point: industry outreach can be read as a signal about regulatory tone even when formal policy commitments are absent.
Third-order effects
- If major technology companies increasingly treat campaign access and prospective personnel decisions as the clearest regulatory signals, political relationships may matter more in shaping expectations than published platform details.
- The episode fits a continuing tension in tech policy: bipartisan skepticism of large platforms can persist while candidates compete for the industry's capital, networks, and public support.
The trend: US technology policy is becoming a contest to reconcile tougher oversight with the political value of Silicon Valley's money and influence.