If You Can’t Join ’Em, Beat ’Em: The Gender Gap in Individual Donations to Congressional Candidates

• Author: Janna L. Deitz,Michael H. Crespin
• Published date: 01 September 2010
• Date: 01 September 2010
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1065912909333131
• Subject Matter: Articles

Political Research Quarterly
63(3) 581 –593
If You Can’t Join ’Em, Beat ’Em: The
© 2010 University of Utah
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Gender Gap in Individual Donations
DOI: 10.1177/1065912909333131
http://prq.sagepub.com
to Congressional Candidates
Michael H. Crespin1 and Janna L. Deitz2
Abstract
The authors revisit the gender gap in campaign finance and find an advantage for women candidates in earning
donations from individual donors due to the activities of female donor networks and the changing congressional
donor pool. Women supported by these networks, especially Democratic women, receive a boost in campaign fund-
raising compared to their male counterparts, whereas women not supported by these networks receive significantly
less. The ideological leanings of congressional donors also advantage Democratic women. Substantial partisan gender
differences in this area of campaign finance persist, and this fund-raising gap may contribute to the growing partisan
gender gap in Congress.
Keywords
American politics, women and politics, legislative studies
Gains in women’s congressional representation have had
amount of total campaign dollars (Uhlaner and Scholzman
a strong Democratic bias, and this partisan gap between
1986; Burrell 1994).1 However, it is possible that these
Republican and Democratic congressional women is pre-
candidates are taking different paths to achieve this out-
dicted to widen (Elder 2008). Explanations for this gap
come, emphasizing different sources of campaign funds.
include a paucity of Republican women in the pipeline of
Women candidates cite their reliance on individual
state legislative office, a regional realignment that has led
donors as a central aspect of their fund-raising strategies
to the defeat of Republican representatives, and the high
(Witt, Paget, and Matthews 1994). Female donor net-
success levels of minority women who disproportionately
works, such as EMILY’s List, WISH List, and the Susan
run as Democrats (Elder 2008). Another possibility for
B. Anthony List place a special emphasis on soliciting
this partisan gender gap may be differences in fund-
individual contributions from women and funneling
raising capabilities among these candidates. We find that
those donations to women candidates. A primarily female
real campaign finance differences between Democratic
donor base and a strong emphasis on contributing to
and Republican women exist, and these differences stem
women candidates characterize these donor networks.
from the activities of female donor networks and the ideo-
Yet aside from understanding the important role of these
logical leanings of individual donors in the congressional
female donor networks in providing the seed money that
donor pool. Because networks and donors favor liberal
makes the electoral success of women congressional
Democratic women, campaign finance may help explain
challengers possible (Francia 2001), we know relatively
this partisan gender gap among women in Congress.
little about the way in which individual contributions,
Individual donors to congressional races contribute
slightly more than half of all campaign dollars (Herrnson
1University of Georgia, Athens
2004), and as such, these donors have a genuine opportu-
2Western Illinois University, Macomb
nity to affect the electoral fortunes of candidates. Because
money is a necessary condition for winning elections
Corresponding Authors:
Michael H. Crespin, Assistant Professor of Political Science,
(Jacobson 1980), campaign fund-raising remains a focus
University of Georgia
of research examining the causes of women’s underrepre-
Email: crespin@uga.edu.
sentation in Con gress (e.g., Burrell 2005; Fiber and Fox
Janna L. Deitz, Associate Professor of Political Science,
2005). Work on gender bias in campaign fund-raising has
Western Illinois University
concluded that men and women candidates raise the same
Email: JL-Deitz@wiu.edu.

---

582
Political Research Quarterly 63(3)
especially those that are bundled through such groups,
more important to the fund-raising goals of women can-
have redefined the gender gap in campaign finance.
didates because of their ability to generate individual
We examine both the effect of female donor networks
contributions through their use of donor networks. If
and the composition of the congressional donor pool on
these individual contributions are coordinated through a
the fund-raising efforts of women candidates and find
female donor network or the PACs send signals to indi-
that when female donor networks support women candi-
vidual donors through endorsements, they are likely to
dates, they have a substantial advantage in raising funds
help women candidates establish their viability early.
from individual donors. In addition, recent changes in the
congressional donor pool (Francia et al. 2003) have cre-
Individual Contributions:
ated a fund-raising environment that benefits women
candidates. How ever, this gender gap differs appreciably
Understanding Donor Motivations
by party: active female donor networks and the ideology
The relatively few studies of individual contributors
of the congressional donor pool create greater advantages
describe the demographics of these activists (Berg,
for Democratic women than Republican women in rais-
Eastoland, and Jaffe 1981), the determinants of their giv-
ing individual donations. This research has implications
ing (Jones and Miller 1985), and the motivations guiding
for other subfields beyond campaign finance, particularly
their behavior (Brown, Powell, and Wilcox 1995; Francia
those that examine the explanatory role of gender or
et al. 2003; Gimpel, Lee, and Pearson-Merkowitz 2008).
issues of women’s underrepresentation. Analyzing gen-
Campaign donors are described as an elite group of activ-
der effects while accounting for the partisan context in
ists who are relatively small in number (Berg, Eastoland,
which it operates is a theoretical approach that applies to
and Jaffe 1981; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995).
a broad range of empirical inquiry into the causes and
Donors who gave large amounts of money were mostly
consequences of underrepresentation.
wealthy white men (Berg, Eastoland, and Jaffe 1981).
More recent work cites evidence that the donor pool
Gender and Campaign Finance
is an ideologically polarized one, reflecting partisan
extremes (Francia et al. 2003). Gimpel, Lee and Pear-
Much of the work examining the campaign finance of
son-Merkowitz (2008) examined individual donations to
men’s and women’s bids for office focuses on total cam-
campaigns from outside the district and concluded that
paign receipts (Uhlaner and Scholzman 1986; Burrell
partisan goals motivate the practice of monetary surro-
1994; Bonneau 2007), campaign spending (Hogan 2007),
gacy. Because these recent findings confirm the partisan
the amount of political action committee (PAC) contribu-
nature and motivation of these donors, they produce
tions raised (Wilhite and Theilmann 1986), or the amount
even more questions regarding the unrepresentative
of financial support received from parties (Burrell
nature of campaign contributors in general and under-
2006b). However, findings with regard to the role of gen-
score the point that some candidates may be in a better
der in attracting these sources of campaign donations do
position than others to attract their contributions.
not necessarily speak for all aspects of campaign finance
Francia et al. (2003) concluded from their survey of
and do not directly address the largest donor pool, indi-
1996 congressional contributors that 85 percent of donors
vidual contributors. The perception that women have to
tend to fall into one of three categories based on their
rely on many small contributions while men are able to
motivations to contribute. A quarter of congressional
collect fewer, large contributions as well as counting on
donors are investors, individuals who have material incen-
the financial support of their party has persisted (Burrell
tives to contribute to campaigns. These donors contribute
2006a) and may reduce the number of women who are
to seek access to individual members of Congress and to
willing to run (Burrell 1985; Lawless and Fox 2005).2
protect their economic interests. Most of these donors are
Women House members consistently raise the largest
conservative Republicans. Francia et al. labeled another
share of their total campaign funds from small contribu-
quarter of the donors intimates. These contributors give to
tions of less than $200 (Dabelko and Herrnson 1997).
campaigns because they enjoy socializing with political
This fact can be an advantage for women candidates,
elites; they tend to donate when they are invited or person-
indicating that they “rely on a broader base of financial
ally asked to do so.
supporters” (Dabelko and Herrnson 1997, 124) than
Ideologues constitute the third and largest category of
men, although it might also be that women are working
congressional donors (Francia et al. 2003). These contrib-
harder, one contributor at a time, to raise the money they
utors donate to congressional campaigns for purposive
need. We find evidence for the argument that women
reasons, citing their goal to influence the composition of
have a broad base of funding support in the bundling
Congress. These activist donors are...