Identity in Campaign Finance and Elections: The Impact of Gender and Race on Money Raised in 2010–2018 U.S. House Elections

• Author: Ashley Sorensen,Philip Chen
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211022846
• Published date: 01 September 2022
• Date: 01 September 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211022846

Political Research Quarterly

© 2021 University of Utah

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10659129211022846

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

Introduction

A democracy’s strength can be evaluated on its represen-

tation of historically marginalized groups, yet in the

United States, descriptive representation has historically

been limited (Dovi 2002; Mansbridge 1999). Despite the

numerous substantive and symbolic benefits derived

from descriptive representation, women constitute merely

23.7 percent of the United States Congress (and are

roughly 50% of the population) and even though people

of color are 39 percent of the population, they account for

just 22 percent of Congress in 2019 (Center for American

Women and Politics 2019; Lowande, Ritchie, and

Lauterbach 2019). Scholars have posited numerous theo-

ries for why these representational gaps exist, ranging

from gaps in ambition (Fox, Lawless, and Feeley 2001;

Lawless and Fox 2010) and psychological stereotyping

(Huddy and Terkildsen 1993; Schneider and Bos 2014;

Sigelman et al. 1995) to attitudes about proper roles in

society (Arceneaux 2001) and other contextual factors

(Citrin, Green, and Sears 1990).

While we understand the importance of evaluating the

mechanism behind gender and racial gaps in representa-

tion, the extant work falls short in two critical ways. First,

by focusing purely on evaluations of candidates, scholars

risk missing subtle but important effects of candidate

identity on other measures of candidate success (in our

case, fundraising totals). Second, most studies maintain

focus on a single axis of identity (usually race or gender),

potentially missing how compounding forms of system-

atic and attitudinal discrimination operate within an

already marginalized group.

We argue that unequal campaign funding between

candidate demographic groups is one factor yet to be

fully analyzed as a barrier to the descriptive representa-

tion of marginalized groups in Congress. While previous

quantitative research has determined that access to cam-

paign funding is no longer an explanation for women’s

current lack of descriptive representation, these conclu-

sions result from the prioritization of one identity over

0

22846PRQXXX10.1177/10659129211022846Political Research QuarterlySorensen and Chen

2

021

1University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

2Beloit College, Beloit, WI, USA

Corresponding Author:

Philip Chen, Beloit College, 700 College St, Beloit, WI 53511-5595,

USA.

Email: chenp@beloit.edu

Identity in Campaign Finance and

Elections: The Impact of Gender and

Race on Money Raised in 2010–2018

U.S. House Elections

Ashley Sorensen1 and Philip Chen2

Abstract

Disproportionate rates of congressional representation based on gender and race are especially stark considering

the symbolic and substantive meaning derived from descriptive representation (Mansbridge 1999). Using an original

data set consisting of candidate demographics, district characteristics, and campaign finance reports, we analyze an

understudied barrier to representation: unequal access to campaign receipts. We argue that it is the simultaneous

gendering and racialization of the campaign finance system that produces gaps in campaign fundraising and representation

(Crenshaw 1989). Our results underscore the limitations of unitary approaches which conclude that women no longer

face a disadvantage in campaign fundraising. Unequal access to campaign receipts serve as a barrier to the descriptive

representation of women of color. By analyzing the interaction of both race and gender on campaign receipt totals in

U.S. House elections from 2010 to 2018, we assert the path to representation is not equal for all.

Keywords

gender, race, campaign fundraising, congressional elections

2022, Vol. 75(3) 738–753

Article

Sorensen and Chen 739

another (i.e., concentration on a candidate’s gender over

race or race over gender), have only been conducted at

the state level, or exclusively focused on one election

cycle (Bryner and Haley 2019; Burrell 2014; Carroll and

Fox 2018; Grumbach and Sahn 2020; Hogan 2007; Sojka

2014).

Understanding that systems of oppression intersect to

shape experiences, and that people with multiple margin-

alized identities tend to be the most institutionally

oppressed, we argue that the exploration of unequal

access to campaign receipts as a barrier to descriptive

representation in the U.S. House of Representatives must

consider how candidates with multiple marginalized

identities are positioned (Bryner and Haley 2019;

Crenshaw 1989; Hancock 2004; Hawkesworth 2003;

Strolovitch 2006).

Fundraising as a Barrier to

Representation

One of the strongest indicators of congressional viability

is a candidate’s access to campaign contributions.

Campaign fundraising and spending provide candidates

with the necessary tools and resources to carry out a wide

range of campaign-related activities such as advertising,

voter mobilization, and polling, which have a strong

empirical relationship with electoral success (Bond et al.

2012; Freedman, Franz, and Goldstein 2004; Hall and

Bonneau 2008; Jacobson 2015; Kam and Zechmeister

2013). In fact, Box-Steffensmeier, Darmofal, and Farrell

(2009) and Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen (2016) found

campaign spending to have an isolated and significant

effect on voter support. Expenditures can help candidates

from underrepresented groups challenge gender and/or

racial stereotypes through obtaining access to campaign

advertising, mobilizing low turnout-voters, and conse-

quently increasing levels of name recognition and cam-

paign framing opportunities (Albright 2014; Bullock,

Gaddie, and Ferrington 2002; Fraga 2018; Lieske 1989).

Thus, to the extent that campaign money accrues to

certain types of candidates, it can exaggerate or negate

opportunities for descriptive representation.

Gender Influences on Campaign

Fundraising

At first glance, however, campaign fundraising does not

appear to be particularly problematic for candidates from

marginalized groups. Burrell’s most recent study on U.S.

House elections from 1993 to 2010 found that women

raise equal or more money compared with men (Burrell

2014, 144, 145). If fundraising gaps no longer exist, then

we should not be concerned about the ability of campaign

fundraising to exacerbate gaps in representation. On the

other hand, while previous quantitative research has

shown that fundraising no longer serves as a barrier to

women’s numbers in Congress, the results of existing

work are still inconclusive once we take interactions

between a candidate’s race and gender into consideration

(Carroll and Fox 2018; Green 2003; Hogan 2007;

Kitchens and Swers 2016; La Cour Dabelko and Herrnson

1997).

Women serving in state legislatures cite numerous rea-

sons as to why they believe fundraising is harder for

women than men. Their explanations range from men and

women having distinctive social networks to there being

gendered differences in women and men’s comfort in

asking for money (Sanbonmatsu, Carroll, and Walsh

2009). Compared with men, women tend to gain a broader

range of financial support because they generally raise a

higher percent of their funds from individual donors and

in smaller amounts (Crespin and Deitz 2010; Green 1998;

Herrick 1996; Jenkins 2007; La Cour Dabelko and

Herrnson 1997). In fact, it was the success of female

Political Action Committees (PAC) organizations, such

as EMILY’s List, which ameliorated women’s campaign

finance burden by efficiently bundling individual dona-

tions for women running for office. While Crespin and

Deitz (2010) point out that women’s tendency to rely on

individual donors might suggest they have a broader net-

work of support, it can also mean women are required to

work harder than men to raise similar amounts of money

(Jenkins 2007). Interestingly, these gender-based chal-

lenges do not seem to automatically translate into fund-

raising disparities, as Burrell (2014) finds that women

actually perform well with both smaller and larger dona-

tions. However, surveys of donors and PACs indicate that

even with the rise of female PAC organizations, they have

failed to address the overall fundraising challenges faced

by Republican and some Democratic women (Crowder-

Meyer and Cooperman 2018; Kitchens and Swers 2016;

Thomsen and Swers 2017). Only 52 percent of Democratic

women and 25 percent of Republican women received

support from female donor PACs. The Republican women

who received these funds still raised less than Republican

men. Consequently, gender-neutral fundraising outcomes

should not be equated to the absence of a male-dominated

fundraising process. Women and men may raise equal

amounts of money, but women could be working harder

per each dollar raised.

Racial Influences on Campaign

Fundraising

Gender is also not the only axis of identity on which

access to campaign money is potentially more difficult.