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

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 fundraising 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.

Why Aren't There More Republican Women in Congress? Gender, Partisanship, and Fundraising Support in the 2010 and 2012 Elections

“…Similarly, these female Democratic candidates are also helped by the integration of women and women's groups into the party base, making activists and donors more responsive to calls to elect women. The strong performance of Democratic women with small donors also aligns with research on women's groups that demonstrates that Democratic but not Republican women benefit from the bundling of individual donations by women's groups, particularly EMILY's List (Crespin and Dietz 2010;Francia 2001).…”

“…The civil rights and feminist movements shifted the traditional party coalitions and fueled a network of organizations, activists, and donors who prioritize diversity and may be more open to giving money to elect female candidates and expand the representation of women in office (Burrell 2014;Sanbonmatsu 2002;Wolbrecht 2000). Indeed, research on the fundraising activities of women's groups highlight the importance of female donor networks, particularly EMILY's List, which only donates to pro-choice female Democrats, as an important source of campaign funding for women (Burrell 1994(Burrell , 2014Cooperman 2013;Crespin and Dietz 2010;Elder 2014;Francia 2001). Crespin and Dietz (2010) find that Democratic female general election candidates raised more individual donations than male Democrats, but there were no differences in the amount of individual donations raised by Republican men and women.…”

“…Indeed, research on the fundraising activities of women's groups highlight the importance of female donor networks, particularly EMILY's List, which only donates to pro-choice female Democrats, as an important source of campaign funding for women (Burrell 1994(Burrell , 2014Cooperman 2013;Crespin and Dietz 2010;Elder 2014;Francia 2001). Crespin and Dietz (2010) find that Democratic female general election candidates raised more individual donations than male Democrats, but there were no differences in the amount of individual donations raised by Republican men and women. Reinforcing the importance of women's groups, only the Democratic women who were part of a female donor network raised more individual contributions than their male Democratic counterparts.…”

“…Meanwhile, Crespin and Dietz (2010) find that women raise more money in individual donations. However, this success with individual donors is driven by small contributions under $200.…”

“…Additionally, party-aligned groups, especially EMILY's List, have spent years building female donor networks to boost the electoral fortunes of Democratic women candidates, providing an additional source of funds solely benefiting Democratic women (Burrell 2008(Burrell , 2010(Burrell , 2014Cooperman 2013;Crespin and Dietz 2010;Elder 2014;Francia 2001).…”