Sex, Money
and Politics
A Center for Responsive Politics report
on women as donors and candidates
by
Sarah Bryner and Doug Weber
Sept 26, 2013
INTRODUCTION
In 1989, a gallon of gas cost 97 cents. The USSR was still a formidable world power, Germany was not yet a
united country, and Madonna’s Like a Prayer was one of the most popular pop songs of the year. And, in the
lead-up to the 1990 elections, 31 women were serving in Congress.
How much things change, and yet, how much they stay the same.
The 2012 congressional elections saw a record number of women elected to both the House and Senate.
And even though most of his large campaign donations came from men, Barack Obama relied more heavily
on female campaign contributors than any general election presidential candidate since at least 1988.
But many patterns have remained remarkably consistent. In the 1990 campaign cycle, 22 percent of all itemized federal contributions came from women. So far in this election cycle, 25 percent of all contributions
have come from women. This 3 percent increase, substantially smaller than the increases seen in the numbers of female elected officials, is one telling component in a much more complex story about how campaign donations by women have changed over time.
In this special report, we’ll detail trends in contributions to women candidates, and from women donors.
Some takeaways:
•
•
•
As candidates, female Democrats rely most heavily (and male Republicans, the least) on the support
of female contributors. That’s been the case since 1990.
Of the top 100 contributors in 2012, 11 were women; that’s down from the 21 who fell into that elite
group of donors in 1990.
As politics has become more polarized, so too have the patterns of donations from women. They
donate more consistently to congressional Democrats. But women who have outside employment (as
compared to homemakers) have moved to the left, while those who self-identify as homemakers have
moved to the right.
Even though women are more evenly represented in Congress than ever before, the “donor gap” between
men and women is still real, and remarkably steady.
WOMEN AS CANDIDATES
The number of high-profile female politicians continues to creep up. But, in the 30 years that Opensecrets.
org has been monitoring campaign finance and elections, the political landscape for female candidates
hasn’t shifted as much as one might guess.
Certainly, there are more women in Congress than there were in 1990. Then, 7 percent of all winning House
candidates were women. By 2012, nearly 18 percent of victorious House candidates were women. Although
this may seem like a major increase, not all candidates win at the same rate. There are more Democratic
female candidates and more winners, whereas the number of Republican female candidates, as well as the
number of winners, has stayed static. In fact, the 2012 congressional elections led to a decrease in the number of House Republican women -- 20 GOP women won, down from an all-time high of 24 in 2010. Even
since the election, one of those women (JoAnn Emerson, a Missouri Republican) left office and was replaced
by a man (Jason Smith).
The parties have not always been so dissimilar in this area. In 1990, 10 percent of the Democrats’ general
election House candidates were women (38), compared to 7 percent of Republican general election House
candidates (28). However, in 2012, the Democrats fielded 116 female candidates (28 percent of the party’s
candidate pool) while the Republicans ran only 48 women candidates (11 percent of their pool). As candidates, female Democrats seem to be slightly more likely to win their contests than female Republicans
-- about 50 percent of female Democrats won in 2012, compared to 41 percent of female Republicans (although many other factors contribute to election success).
Generally, some candidates are more likely than others to receive money from women donors. Female
Democrats receive the highest proportion of their money from women, and Republican men receive the
lowest. This trend can be seen just by scanning the list of the members of the 113th Congress who received
the highest proportion of their money from women. Of the top 10 members from each chamber, only one,
Bernie Sanders, is not a female Democrat. Similarly, of the members who received the lowest percentage of
their money from female donors, only three -- Ed Markey, Gene Green, and Mark Pryor -- are not Republican
men. The sitting member who received the least amount of money from women is Rep. Howard Coble (RNC), who took in only 9.5 percent of his total itemized contributions from women.
HIGHEST PERCENT OF CAMPAIGN DONATIONS FROM WOMEN
SENATE
Member
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass)
Claire McCaskill (D-Mo)
Kay R. Hagan (D-NC)
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt)
Patty Murray (D-Wash)
Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Total Gender Coded Total from Women % from Women
$13,276,020
$6,038,125
45.5%
$5,964,690
$2,698,952
45.3%
$5,409,839
$2,424,931
44.8%
$17,411,227
$7,620,482
43.7%
$11,744,749
$4,806,138
40.9%
$6,022,187
$2,456,329
40.8%
$1,529,820
$613,037
40.1%
$7,669,896
$3,060,847
39.9%
$4,685,421
$1,864,037
39.8%
$2,613,188
$1,018,469
39%
HOUSE
Member
Total Gender Coded Total from Women % from Women
Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill)
$686,044
$445,900
65%
Julia Brownley (D-Calif)
$1,077,108
$550,872
51.1%
Chellie Pingree (D-Maine)
$533,925
$271,320
50.8%
Jackie Speier (D-Calif)
$443,479
$222,724
50.2%
Donna Edwards (D-Md)
$241,234
$118,100
49%
Betty McCollum (D-Minn)
$253,436
$122,677
48.4%
Lois Capps (D-Calif)
$1,472,863
$709,951
48.2%
Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
$587,046
$280,634
47.8%
Ann Mclane Kuster (D-NH)
$1,524,411
$717,314
47.1%
Robin Kelly (D-Ill)
$222,405
$103,150
46.4%
LOWEST PERCENT OF CAMPAIGN DONATIONS FROM WOMEN
SENATE
Member
Thad Cochran (R-Miss)
David Vitter (R-La)
Ed Markey (D-Mass)
James M. Inhofe (R-Okla)
Tom Coburn (R-Okla)
Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala)
Mark Pryor (D-Ark)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
John A. Barrasso (R-Wyo)
Total Gender Coded Total from Women % from Women
$1,172,839
$145,731
12.4%
$6,349,395
$1,023,163
16.1%
$446,615
$75,250
16.9%
$3,183,135
$541,424
17%
$1,016,514
$184,675
18.1%
$1,495,767
$274,855
18.4%
$3,618,554
$669,783
18.5%
$2,683,647
$499,419
18.6%
$4,414,776
$922,692
20.9%
$2,985,542
$632,689
21.2%
HOUSE
Member
Howard Coble (R-NC)
Steve Scalise (R-La)
Mike D. Rogers (R-Ala)
Gene Green (D-Texas)
Mike Simpson (R-Idaho)
Tom Cole (R-Okla)
Chris Collins (R-NY)
Frank D. Lucas (R-Okla)
Adrian Smith (R-Neb)
Rob Bishop (R-Utah)
Total Gender Coded Total from Women % from Women
$118,275
$11,240
9.5%
$676,295
$69,150
10.2%
$431,035
$44,535
10.3%
$150,550
$16,450
10.9%
$282,333
$33,030
11.7%
$455,181
$54,300
11.9%
$393,910
$51,900
13.2%
$408,694
$54,000
13.2%
$332,086
$44,242
13.3%
$102,404
$13,650
13.3%
Of course, just receiving more or less money from women does not mean that the lawmakers are likely to
behave any differently from each other once elected, nor does it mean that those members are receiving
less money from women for any specific reason. However, access is often granted to deep-pocketed campaign donors, and if those campaign donors are predominantly male (or female), this may be an indication
that the politician is more likely to grant access to men.
WOMEN AS CONTRIBUTORS
Women are actually slightly better represented among large campaign donors than they are among members of Congress, but not among the very deep-pocketed donors. In 2012, women contributed just under
30 percent of all of the money given that cycle, but they only contributed 19 percent of all money to outside
spending groups, which are allowed to receive unlimited contributions. And, if we remove contributions by
the top woman donor (Miriam Adelson) from the list, women contributed only 11 percent of all money to
outside groups. In fact, women tended to give, per capita, smaller donations than did male contributors. Of
the 100 most generous campaign contributors in 2012, only 11 were women.
Looking only at the amount of money coming from women can be deceptive. The candidates who get the
most money, as a percentage, from women are almost entirely female Democrats, but the average female
contributor is not necessarily donating to female Democrats. Fewer Republican women run for Congress,
and so -- naturally -- more money tends to flow from women to Democratic women, compared to Republican women.
However, as a proportion of the overall amount of money given, women only marginally tend to prefer Democratic candidates. In fact, in 1996, women favored Republican congressional candidates. Substantially more
money was delivered from women to George W. Bush than to Al Gore in 2000, although Bush refused matching funds and had no limit on his primary fundraising, leading him to receive much more money than Gore.
Barack Obama, however, received 70 percent more campaign money from women than did John McCain in
the 2008 presidential contest. In 2012, Obama was also more dependent on female contributors than any
general election presidential candidate since 1990. More than 44 percent of his itemized campaign money
came from women, while only 28 percent of Mitt Romney’s money was provided by women.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO FEDERAL CANDIDATES FROM WOMEN
Amount from women to
Amount from Women to
Percent of women’s money to
Cycle
Candidates
Democrats
Democrats
1990
$36,337,893
$18,870,404
51.9%
1992
$55,960,955
$33,003,714
59%
1994
$64,321,090
$32,931,025
51.2%
1996
$77,716,390
$37,379,474
48.1%
1998
$77,960,548
$40,314,856
51.7%
2000
$109,592,551
$57,215,459
52.2%
2002
$113,102,129
$62,241,691
55%
2004
$149,905,777
$80,788,620
53.9%
2006
$189,249,525
$108,892,727
57.5%
2008
$181,868,319
$106,516,624
58.6%
2010
$222,570,178
$117,140,308
52.6%
2012
$231,810,103
$120,895,903
52.2%
2014
$33,800,926
$18,981,166
56.2%
Women are not a monolith, of course. They represent different interests and industries, and come from different backgrounds. In 1990, homemakers donated similarly to women who work outside the home, based
on party preferences. In fact, homemakers were very slightly more likely to support Democrats in 1990 than
were women who reported outside employment. That reversed itself and the gap has widened since 1990,
and in 2012, 56 percent of the donations from women who reported outside employment went to Democrats, compared to 37 percent of the donations from women who self-identified as homemakers.
EMPLOYED WOMEN VS. HOMEMAKER CONTRIBUTIONS
Employed Women Female Homemakers Difference between
Cycle
% to Dems
% to Dems
% to Democrats
1990
42%
42%
0%
1992
57%
45%
12%
1994
52%
43%
9%
1996
49%
35%
14%
1998
54%
40%
14%
2000
50%
38%
12%
2002
54%
44%
10%
2004
59%
44%
15%
2006
59%
44%
15%
2008
66%
57%
9%
2010
60%
45%
15%
2012
56%
37%
19%
2014
62%
42%
20%
The overall number of homemakers, as a proportion of overall donations, is still a small share of the overall
pool, with these women only contributing between 7 percent and 9 percent of all money since 1990. From
this data, it appears that even though a similar proportion of the overall pool is composed of homemakers,
those homemakers are becoming more conservative, or the women who enter the workforce are becoming
more liberal.
Just as not all women have outside employment, not all women who have outside employment are in the
same kinds of jobs. Women report employers from many different industries, but substantial variation exists
in how large a share of these industries’ contributions come from women. For example, only 16 percent of
contributions from the defense sector came from women in 2012. More than 43 percent of contributions
from the “ideological” sector came from women.
These numbers do not necessarily suggest that fewer women work in the defense sector than in the ideological sector. What they do suggest is that candidates who receive substantial amounts of money from the
defense sector are less likely to receive money from women.
Certain industries are also more likely to see more money flowing from female donors to federal candidates.
So far this cycle, more than 63 percent of all money from the nonprofit sector has come from women. Other
industries that tend to see a larger percentage of their contributions from women include miscellaneous
services, education, and religious institutions. Those industries that lean more on men making contributions
include casinos and gambling, defense aerospace, special trade contractors, and mining.
LIMITS & LEGAL REFORM
In the last 24 years, there have been dramatic shifts in the ways individuals can donate money. Until 2002, individuals could give essentially unlimited amounts of money to political parties, which could then distribute
those funds to state parties and candidates which could spend that money on issue ads that were permitted to mention federal candidates. This “soft money” system allowed individuals to circumvent contribution
limits.
In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which banned unlimited soft money. But
in 2009, legal developments allowed individuals (and organizations) to begin donating unlimited sums of
money to “independent expenditure only” committees. These committees provided deep-pocketed individuals with the opportunity to spend large amounts of money again.
What do these legal changes have to do with women’s donation habits? Women tend to make up a larger
percentage of the donor pool when contribution amounts are limited by law -- although the overall percentage of women donating tends to be no higher than 35 percent. In the 2004, 2006 and 2008 cycles, which
were the only three since 1990 with strict donation limits restricting the amount of money a single individual could give, the percentage of women as a portion of the donor pool increased.
Breaking out the percentage of women donating to the various types of political recipients reveals some
other trends. Women tend to be a larger portion of the donor pool to presidential candidates, and a smaller
proportion of the donors to PACs. After 2002, when soft money donations to parties were banned, the proportion of money contributed to the parties by women, compared to men, increased. These trends suggest
that when campaign limits are enforced and effective, women tend to make up a larger share of the donor
pool.
WOMEN DONORS DRIFT TO LEFT
MEN STILL RULE IN POLITICAL DONATIONS
METHODOLOGICAL NOTES
Importantly, this study examines only contributions from individuals who donated at least $200 to an individual candidate, party, PAC, or super PAC. Individuals making contributions of less than that amount are
not included in the Federal Election Commission’s downloadable file, and are therefore not included in our
analysis. There is no reason to believe that individuals who donate more than $200 are a representative
sample of all Americans, or even a representative sample of all Americans who donate to federal campaigns.
However, these large contributions consistently come to more than 60 percent of the total money received
by campaigns, so the impact of individuals who make these contributions is magnified.
How do we identify contributor’s sex?
We use an algorithm developed by MelissaData (and available here) to decompose a contributor’s name
into Firstname, Lastname, Prefix, Suffix, and Sex. The software recognizes contextual clues (including identifiers like “Mrs.” or “Mr.”) as well as known sexes for names like John and Mary to sort names into one of four
categories: male, female, unknown, or ambiguous. OpenSecrets.org staff members reconcile any conflicting
sexes for individual contributors, and manually identify sex for some of the largest contributors.
Graphics by Anna Flagg
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission
to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.
OpenSecrets.org is your nonpartisan guide to money’s influence on U.S. elections and public policy. Whether
you’re a voter, journalist, activist, student or interested citizen, use our free site to shine light on your government.
Count Cash & Make Change.