No Longer a Gender Gap Among Democratic Presidential Donors: the Importance Of

No Longer a Gender Gap among Democratic Presidential Donors: The Importance of

Messenger, Message and Medium

David B. Magleby, Jay Goodliffe, and Joseph Olsen

Brigham Young University

Paper presented at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.

August 28-September 1, 2014

Washington, D.C.

No Longer a Gender Gap among Democratic Presidential Donors: The Importance of Messenger, Message and Medium

David B. Magleby, Jay Goodliffe, and Joseph Olsen Brigham Young University

Abstract

Women have long been outnumbered by men as donors to candidates, party committees and political action committees (PACs). But in 2008 and 2012 women outnumbered men as donors to Barack Obama and the Democratic Party; this was also the case with donors to Hilary Clinton in 2008. Republican presidential donors in 2008 and 2012 continue to be overwhelmingly male by more than two-to-one. Female donors differ from female voters in that female donors were more interested in politics than female voters, female donors were even more ideologically extreme than males in comparison to voters, and that female donors are not distinguished from male donors in terms of education and income despite lingering differences among male and female voters. The level of female participation as Obama donors was greatest among small donors but a majority of his donors giving up to $1000 were women in 2008 and 2012. Only among donors giving more than $1,000 were there more men than women giving to Obama. We find evidence that women, many of them new donors, were motivated to give because of Obama’s candidate appeal (messenger), his position on issues (message) and the ability of the campaign to utilize the Internet to solicit and receive contributions and to engage participants in ways beyond making campaign contributions (medium).

*We express appreciation for funding from the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Hewlett Foundation and Brigham Young University, including an undergraduate student mentoring grant in funding this research. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of BYU Statistics Professor Howard Christensen for consultation on our sampling strategies. Our colleagues in Computer Science at BYU, Christophe Giraud-Carrier, Matt Smith, Yao Huang, Weston Rowley, and David Wilcox, assisted in developing the matching algorithms used with the FEC data. Research assistance on the paper was provided by Troy Anderson, Ryan Beachum, Nicholas Boyer, Ethan Busby, Geoffrey Cannon, Kenneth Daines, Rebecca Eaton, Jeff Edwards, Taylor Elwood, Bree Gardner, John Griffith, Eric Hoyt, Bradley Jones, David Lassen, Phillip Manwaring, Dallin McKinnon, Haley McCormick, Payden McRoberts, Grady Nye, Cody Olive, Robert Richards, Calvin Roberts, Tyler Simms, Tessa Sheffield, and Courtney Waters. We also wish to thank the Barack Obama, John McCain, and Mitt Romney campaigns for their cooperation in sharing random samples of their small donors in 2008 and 2012.

No Longer a Gender Gap among Democratic Presidential Donors: The Importance of

Messenger, Message and Medium

David B. Magleby, Jay Goodliffe, and Joseph Olsen

Brigham Young University

For decades after women were granted the right to vote, there remained a voting gender

gap with men turning out to vote at higher rates than women. More recently however, rates of

voting among women exceed voting rates among men.1 As the gender gap in turnout has

vanished, a gender gap in how women and men vote has arisen. Starting in the 1950s and 1960s

and growing until leveling off in the 1980s, women have voted more for Democratic presidential

candidates than have men.2 Estimates of the gender gap in presidential voting place it at between

4 and 11 percent since 1980, with an average of nearly 8 percent more women than men voting

Democratic.3 Among female voters, Barack Obama’s share of the vote was 56 percent in 2008

and 55 percent in 2012.4 This resulted in a gap of 13 percent in 2008 and 12 percent in 2012

which is consistent with the 12 percent gap in 20005 and wider than the 3 percent gap in 2004.6

Although the male–female gap in voting remains a widely perceived distinction, it has

been seen by some as overstated and statistically insignificant.7 Some also caution that too much could be made of the gender gap, as it is smaller in size than other voting gaps like race, class, and education.8 Gender, along with race and age were however important elements of Obama’s winning coalition in both 2008 and 2012.

More directly relevant to this study is the widespread consensus that there is an enduring gender gap in making campaign contributions with greater participation by men than women.

Verba, Schlozman, and Brady find evidence of small but significant differences between men

and women in “making a campaign contribution, working informally in the community,

contacting an official, and affiliation with a political organization—that is, membership in or

contributions to organizations that take stands in politics.”9 Burns, Schlozman, and Verba find

that “although women are more likely to go to the polls, with respect to other forms of political

activity, men are more likely to take part.”10 Clifford Brown, et al., in their benchmark study of

presidential donors found that when it comes to making campaign contributions, men have long

been more active than women.11 More recently, in a study of state-level donors in Ohio in 2002,

Robert Boatright and Michael Malbin find that 64 percent of the donors were men.12

One possible reason for this gap is given by Margaret M. Conway who describes women

as having less “internal political efficacy;” that is, less “confidence in one’s ability to understand

politics and government and the belief that governmental activities can be influenced by the

activities of individuals like oneself.” Women, she finds, also have less “external political

efficacy,” or “the belief that public officials are responsive to the interests of individuals like

oneself.” In addition, women “perceive the government as less attentive and responsive to

citizens’ needs and preferences than do men.”13 Conway’s findings about efficacy are consistent with those of Burns et al.: “Women are less likely than men to be psychologically engaged with politics—that is, to be politically interested, informed and efficacious.”14

Our 2008 and 2012 surveys revealed changes in the donor gender gap, especially among small donors. In our survey, 45 percent of all donors in 2008 were women and 47 percent in

2012.15 Estimates vary slightly but the proportion of voters in 2008 and 2012 had more than half

of all voters being women. The Cooperative Congressional Election study had 50 percent of

voters in 2008 being women and 52 percent in 2012, the Current Population Survey’s Voter

Supplement File estimates the share of female voters as 54 percent in both 2008 and 2012 We

turn now to the question of whether there is a gender gap in philanthropy generally as a

benchmark on female patterns of making financial contributions generally.

In this paper we explore the gap between the parties in the participation of women as donors. We explore candidate, issue and ideological differences as possible explanations. We also explore structural changes that may help explain the change. One major structural change is the lower cost and greater efficiency of the Internet as a mode of soliciting and making contributions. While the Internet was part of campaigns before 2008, it grew dramatically in use in that cycle and has continued to grow in usage. Given that most donor lists from prior campaigns were male centric, did the less expensive mode of contacting potential donors via social media and the Internet help activate female donors. A second structural change that may impact female donors with more capacity to give is passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform

Act (BCRA) in 2002 that doubled contribution limits, increased the aggregate contribution limit, and indexed both of these limits to inflation. To what extent did these changes increase the impact of female donors relative to male donors? Finally, the courts have altered the way individuals can contribute to influence elections by allowing unlimited contributions to Super

PACs. This change occurred as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v.

FEC16 and subsequent lower court and FEC actions.17 The Citizens United decision and advent

of Super PACs happened after our 2008 survey and before our 2012 survey but we have data on

donor perceptions of whether allowing unlimited contributions made donors in 2008 more or less

likely to give again in 2012.

The philanthropy literature suggests that women are generally more likely to give than men to their church or synagogue.18 In philanthropy, women also “tend to make smaller gifts than men,”19 and “only in politics are [men] more likely than women to be donors.”20

Compared to men, do women see charitable giving as more important than contributing to candidates? A study by the Women’s Campaign Forum Foundation found that “women drive charitable giving but don’t associate political contributions with the social change of charitable contributions.”21 This study provides interesting insights into the differences between charitable and political giving. After the 2006 election pollster Celinda Lake surveyed 300 men and 300 women who were either political donors (200 men and 200 women) or charitable givers (100 men and 100 women). The summary report from the study says, in part, “The most interesting finding from our research was not the giving gap between men and women, but the perception gap between political and charitable donors.”22 Charitable donors “do not connect political leadership with positive social change in the way political contributors do.”23 So what happened in 2008 and 2012 to dramatically expand female donor participation among Democrats? We turn now to the surge in female donors in 2008 and 2012.

Partisan Gender Gap in Making Political Contributions in 2008 and 2012

Our study of donors in 2008 and 2012 finds much higher proportions of female donors to federal candidates, party committees and PACS than any prior study. As indicated previously, among all donors in 2008, 46 percent were women and in 2012 47 percent were women. These percentages are for our sample of donors to presidential candidates (including small donors to

Obama and McCain in 2008 and Obama and Romney in 2012, congressional candidates, party committees and PACs). One study with a more limited focus looking at Democratic donors in

2004 gubernatorial and state legislative contests found that “small donors nearly reflect non-

donors in gender.”24 We find in 2008 that half (50 percent) of presidential donors were female, and that 48 percent of presidential donors in 2012 were women. This roughly approximates the proportion of voters who were women. This is a substantial increase over the proportion of female donors in prior studies, which found only about a quarter of donors to be women.25 Part

of this departure from previous studies may be related to the previous finding that small donors

in some contexts may be more likely to be female.26 Our study had unprecedented access to the

records of small donors to presidential nominees allowing us to estimate the gender breakdown of donors at different giving levels. Table 1 provides these data.

Table 1

Percent Female Donors at Different Aggregate Giving Levels, 2008 and 2012

2008 2012

All donors* 46 47

All presidential donors 50 48

All donors giving over $200* 35 36

All presidential donors giving over $200 42 38

Party nominee donors giving under $200 53 51

Source: 2008 and 2012 Donor Surveys

Note: * includes donors to presidential and congressional candidates, party committees

and PACs.

Including small donors makes a substantial difference in estimating the gender

distribution of donors. When they are not included the profile of all federal donors to candidates,

party committees and PACs has women as just over one-third of donors. Because of the large number of small donors and the fact that a majority of them were women in 2008 and 2012

including them in the estimate increases the share of women among all federal donors by 11

percent in both years.

The big change in 2008 and 2012 was the success of the Obama campaign in securing contributions from women. A majority of Obama’s donors (55 percent) in both 2008 and 2012

were women. Data from the CCES survey finds men strongly supporting Mitt Romney in 2012

(57 percent while women went heavily for Obama 55 percent. There were some hints of a declining gender gap among Democratic donors in 2000 and 2004 but these studies were more limited in scope and while the gap had narrowed, there were still many more men than women contributing to Democratic candidates. Aldrich, Freeze, and Montgomery found an increase in

the proportion of female Democratic presidential donors in 2000 when women were 37 percent

of Democratic donors to 43 percent of Democratic donors in 2004.27 The data from 2008 where

women were 56 percent of all Democratic presidential donors suggest this growth may be an

extension of something started two presidential election cycles before.

It is important to underscore the substantial gender gap in greater female support for

Obama over McCain in 2008: Among the women donors in our donor sample, 88% donated to

Obama over McCain, in comparison to 70 percent of male donors donating to Obama, a difference of 18 percent. The high percentages of both male and female donors supporting

Obama over McCain can be attributed to the disproportionate numbers of donors to the two candidates. Overall, there were many more Obama donors than McCain donors.28 In 2008, we

estimate that Obama had approximately 3.8 million donors and McCain had approximately

855,000, and in 2012 Obama had an estimated 4.1 million donors and Romney 1.6 million. The

gender difference is NOT due to the larger number of Obama donors compared to the number of

McCain donors. By contrast, the high percentages of both male and female donors supporting

Obama can reasonably be attributed to the disproportionate numbers of donors to the two

candidates.

In our 2012 sample, 80% of female donors supported Obama over Romney, in

comparison to 63% of male donors supporting Obama over Romney. The overall drop for both

genders in the proportion of donors supporting Obama relative to the Republican candidate could

in part be due to the fact that in 2012 the GOP donor pool seems to have expanded more relative

to the Democratic donor pool. Indeed, we estimate that Obama had 4.1 million donors in 2012,

an increase of 300,000 donors relative to his 2008 output. Our estimate for the number of

Romney donors is about 1.6 million, which nearly doubles the number that McCain had in 2008.

McCain’s fundraising was more limited in 2008 in part because he accepted public funds for the

general election which Romney did not do.29

We plot the percent of presidential donors who identified as either Democrats or

Republicans and were female in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Percent of Female Donors to Presidential Candidates, 1972-2012

0 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012

Republicans Democrats

Note: In 1972, the universe of presidential donors included all those who gave more than $100 (the legal disclosure limit at the time) to presidential candidates' committees or to other committees who then gave to presidential committees. In 1988, 2000, 2004 the universe is people who gave more than $200 (the disclosure FECA limit) to presidential candidates. In 2008 and 2012 the universe is people who give to presidential candidates, regardless of the amount contributed.

The greater level of participation by women in making financial contributions to

presidential candidates is most strongly the case among Democrats. It is, however, a departure

from previous studies. Aguilar et al., in their study of itemized donors to presidential candidates

in the 1988 and 1996 elections, found that Republican donors were 75 percent male and

Democratic donors were 61 percent male.30 Clyde Wilcox’s summary of presidential donor

studies from 1972, 1988, and 2000 elections also reminds of just how wide the gender gap was with men being 83 percent, 73 percent, and 70 percent of donors respectively.31 This began to change as early as 2000. As Aldrich and his colleagues found in their study of presidential donors in 2000 and 2004, there is a striking gender gap between the parties in the proportions of men and women contributing. They found that women in 2000 and 2004 were 25 percent of

GOP donors, about the same proportion as in the Brown et al. 1988 study.32 We examine the

proportions of female donors to Obama and McCain and Obama and Romney by different giving levels in Table 2.

Table 2

Percent Female Donors to Presidential Candidates by Giving Levels, 2008 and 2012

2008 2012 All Obama McCain All Obama Romney <200 52 56 31 50 55 34 200-999 44 53 21 40 52 25 1000-2199/2399 42 47 31 34 47 21 2200+/2400+ 37 44 21 32 47 20 TOTAL 50 55 28 48 55 32

We find that women were 29 percent of Republican presidential donors in 2008 and 33

percent in 2012. McCain’s small donors were also 31 percent women while Romney’s small

donors were 34 percent women. Women were 37 percent of Democratic presidential donors in

2000 and 43 percent in 2004.33 In our study of donors in 2008, we found that 51 percent of

Democratic presidential donors were women, and, in 2012, the number increased to 56 percent.

Among all Obama donors in 2008, 55 percent were women, 56 percent of Obama’s small donors were women, and 51 percent of Obama’s donors who gave more than $200 were women. In

2008, 31 percent of McCain’s small donors were women, and 23 percent of donors giving more than $200 were women.

In 2012, again 55 percent of Obama’s small donors were women and 50 percent of his donors giving over $200 were women. While there has been a modest increase in the proportion of Republican presidential donors who are women, up from 25 percent in 1988 to 29

and 33 percent in 2008 and 2012. It is among Democrats and especially Obama where the surge

in female donors has come.

The partisan gender gap in percent of donors at each giving level is substantial and changes little between 2008 and 2012. Obama not only had a majority of his small donors who were women but the same is true for donors giving up to $1000 in both 2008 and 2012. In addition the difference between men and women at the higher giving levels, while having a majority of male donors finds substantial participation by women. In contrast, women only made up 23 percent of McCain donors who gave more than $200. Obama’s donors giving over

$2,200 were 44 percent female. While there is little difference between Romney and McCain in the percent of donors giving under $1000 who were women, among donors who gave more than

$1,000, Romney had a lower percentage of women than McCain—21 and 26 percentage points respectively Romney is 11.5 percent lower than McCain in the percent of women who gave more than $1000.

Our study design treats our 2008 cross-section as the first wave in a two wave panel study. We attempted to survey all donors in our 2008 data set after the 2012 election and were successful in obtaining new data from nearly 1200 of them. These responses help us assess the differential retention rate for male and female donors to Obama and McCain as donors to Obama and Romney and others in 2012. Overall, 77 percent of female presidential donors who had given in 2008 gave again in 2012, as did 73 percent of male donors. By four to six percentage points, donors to McCain were more likely to stay in the donor pool (give to Romney) than

Obama donors. This is true of male and female donors.

Is there a gender gap in contributions to congressional candidates? The Francia et al. surveys found women comprised less than one-quarter of donors to congressional candidates in

1996.34 In 2008, an observer bemoaned the continuing low level of contributions from women at

the congressional level.35 In our survey of donors to congressional candidates in 2008 we found

women to be 33 percent of the donors to congressional candidates. This is about ten percentage

points below the levels of female donor participation in funding presidential candidates in 2008.

In 2012, nearly half (47 percent) of all contributions to Democratic congressional candidates

were from women while only 27 percent of contributions to Republican congressional candidates

were form women. Thus we see with congressional candidates what we have seen with

presidential candidates that women were at or near parity with men in the number of donors to

Democrats in 2012. In and 2012. In terms of contributions to congressional elections, John Green

et al. have observed “In 1978 women accounted for approximately 17 percent of the individuals

who contributed more than $200 to House and Senate candidates. In 1996, 23 percent of those

contributors were women.”36 Moreover female donors were “more likely than men to be

occasional donors, and they give smaller amounts to fewer candidates.”37 One study of female congressional donors point to fundraising networks as an explanation for a Democratic Party

advantage, but “only when reaching out to donors of smaller amounts.”38

We also surveyed random samples of donors giving more than $200 to national party

committees and PACs. Figure 2 provides the proportion of men and women who contributed to

Democratic and Republican Party committees as well as PACs in 2008 and 2012.

Figure 2

Percent Female in Party Committees and PACs by Party ID

60 54 52 49 50 45

40 34 32 28 30 26

0 Dem Dem GOP GOP Dem Dem GOP GOP contributors contributors contributors contributors contributors contributors contributors contributors 2008 2012 2008 2012 2008 2012 2008 2012 Party Committees PACs

Source: 2008 and 2012 Donor Surveys. Note: Here and throughout the book we treat Independent Democrats as Democrats and Independent Republicans as Republicans.

When giving to party committees and PACs we find similar patterns of much greater participation by Democratic than Republican women. In 2008, 45 percent of donors to

Democratic Party committees were women and in 2012 women and men were at virtual parity, with 49 percent of party donors being women. In contrast, in 2008 just over one-quarter (25 percent) of donors to Republican Party committees were women. As noted, women were 28 percent of Republican presidential donors in 2008. In 2012, women were one-third of

Republican Party donors but still lagging well behind Democratic women in party committee donor involvement.39

A majority of Democratic contributors to PACs in both 2008 and 2012 were women and again Republican women were a much smaller fraction of Republican donors to PACs. This

may reflect the longstanding efforts of PACs like EMILY’s List to cultivate female Democratic

donors. Republican PAC donors are much more likely to be men. We see these differences as

deserving of further analysis. We discuss them here primarily to reinforce the fact that the

gender gap in greater female participation as donors is not isolated to Barack Obama but extends

to party committees and PACs. Moreover, the pattern of female participation in funding McCain

and Romney is not limited to Republican presidential candidates but extends to party committee

and PAC support as well. Democrats, in short, appear to have closed the gender gap in participation in making donations while the Republican pattern remains largely unchanged from the 1970s and 1980s. Is the increase in participation by female donors to Democratic presidential candidates and party committees a reflection in changes in party identification among voters. We plot party identification from the American National Election Study in presidential election years from 1952 through 2012 in Figure 3

Figure 3 Percentage of Females by Self-reported Party ID, Presidential Years, 1952-2012 (ANES) 65

40 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012

Democrats Republicans

Women have been more likely to identify as Democrats long before they started to

become more active as Democratic donrosdonors. There was near parity in party identification

among women in 1976 and between 1952 and 1964 more women were Republicans than

Democrats. But the gender gap in patterns of donoationsdonations among female partisans far

exceeds the gender gap in party identification, with as noted far more Democratic women

contributing in 2008 than Republican women.

Gender and Donor Demographics

Income

The literature exploring the gender gap in donating to campaigns has often explained the

male/female difference as a result of income disparities between men and women. Burns et al.

find that “when it comes to making a donation, the single most important factor is family

income.”40 Women may therefore donate less due to income and occupational disparities between men and women. Women are less likely than men to be in the workforce, and if employed, they are less likely to hold the kinds of jobs that “foster participation.”41 Nearly three

times as many men as women earn more than $75,000 a year.42 Likewise, nearly four and a half

times more men than women earn $150,000 or more per year.43 Moreover, as age increases, the earning gap widens, which is relevant to the study of donors, as they are typically older.44 Even when men and women have the same jobs, women earn 77 cents on every dollar earned by men.45

Women in the past have been less likely to participate in professions whose members are

more inclined to make political contributions, such as lawyers, business managers, independent

business owners, and so on. That is gradually changing, with women now receiving a higher

percentage of bachelor’s (57 percent) and master’s degrees (60 percent) than men.46 Women are at parity with men in attending law schools, but only approximately 19 percent of partners in law firms are women.47 Women constitute less than a third of students in business schools,48 and

16 among the 100 largest companies in the U.S., women make up only 17 percent of the boards of directors.49 The income gap has thus been seen as reinforcing the gender gap in making political contributions, with men having “traditionally commanded a disproportionate share of that which is most valued in society—for example, money, power, status or education.”50

Education

A second frequent explanatory variable for gender differences in donations is education.

Burns, Schlozman, and Verba summarize the literature on gender, education, and political participation as follows: “Men enjoy an advantage when it comes to the single most important resource for political participation, formal education.”51 And in 2008 male voters had more college graduates and persons with advanced degrees than female voters, with little difference in this regard between Obama and McCain voters.52As noted, the balance of higher education degrees has shifted toward women, such that this male advantage among donors, who tend to be older, may diminish in future decades. This may already be happening as unlike previous studies, we do not find consistent differences between female and male donors in education.

These data are a change from a study of donors as recent as 2000 and 2004 which found “male donors tend to have more education than female donors.” 53 This lack of difference is important because, as Burns et al. state, “formal education tends to inculcate the kinds of verbal, organizational, and bureaucratic skills that are useful in political activity, [such that] the well- educated are likely to find it easier to take part politically.”54

Age and Race

The conventional view of political donors is that they are older, white, and male. This was true for McCain and Romney in 2008 and 2012. But as in other areas, Obama donors broke the mold by being younger, more racially diverse and more female. Female donors were

younger overall than male donors in 2008 but not in 2012. The median age of presidential

donors in 2008 was 54 for females and 56 for males. The median age for Obama donors in 2008

was 56. McCain donors in 2008 had a median age of 65 for women and 67 for men. The same

profile of younger donors to Obama than to McCain or Romney is found if we look at female

small donors in 2008 where the median age for Obama donors was 51 and the median age for

McCain small donors was 67. In 2012 the median age for female Obama small donors was 58

and the median age for Romney small donors was 66. Thus the median age of donors in all categories was older in 2012 than 2008 but the difference between donors to Obama and the

Republican nominees was substantial and persistent. There was also an age difference, albeit it a

much smaller one, between Obama and McCain voters in 2008 with Obama voters median age

43 and McCain voters median age 48.55 The median age donors to both parties’ nominees in

2012 was older for Obama it was age 50 and for Romney age 24.56

An important aim of our study was to learn more about donors giving to a presidential

campaign for the first time. These new female donors to Obama in 2008 had a median age of 43, while new female donors to Obama in 2012 had a median age of 51. Romney new female donors in 2012 had a median age of 63. We find a similar pattern when we utilize our panel design to examine age and gender differences among donors who contributed again in 2012 after giving in 2008, and those who gave in 2008 but did not contribute again four years later in 2012.

The median age of female Obama 2008 donors who gave again was ten years younger than the median age of McCain 2008 female donors who subsequently gave to Romney. The gap is even wider for those who gave in 2008 but did not in 2012. The median age of an Obama female donor who did not give again to Obama in 2012 was 56 years of age, 17 years younger than the median age of a McCain female donor who did not give again to Romney in 2012. The median

age of an Obama female donor who gave to him in 2012 but not in 2008 was age 51, which is 12

years younger than the median age of a female donor who gave to Romney in 2012 but did not

give to McCain in 2008. When we compare these same categories of donors who stayed and left among male donors we see a similar pattern with Obama donors of all types having lower median ages but the difference is not as stark for the male donors who left or who joined.

Much has been written about Obama’s coalition being disproportionately female, young

and non-white. Overall about the same proportion of his coalition in 2008 and 2012 was non-

white (37 for females and 38 percent for males respectively). In contrast, McCain female voters

were 9 percent non-white and 13 percent of his male voters were non-white. In 2012, one third

of Obama male and female voters were non-white while 10 percent of Romney male and female

voters were white.57

Interest and Participation

Another part of the explanation for why men contribute to campaigns more often than

women has been the view is that in general men are more interested in politics.58 In contrast, our

study found female donors were five percent more likely to say they were extremely interested in

the campaign in 2008 than male donors, a statistically significant difference.59 But male donors

in 2008 were significanltyisignificantly more likely than female donors to report being interested

in politics following the election,60 and in 2012 there were not significant differences by gender on the question of interest in the campaign. This suggests there was something about the 2008 campaign that especially interested female donors more than male donors, and this did not extend to interest in politics generally after the election. The general finding of gender parity in interest among donors by 2012 is different from the pattern of interest in political news among male and female voters.61

We asked respondents in our survey about their level of participation before and during

the campaign. There were few differences between male and female donors in reported

participation before the campaign, the same was true for the item on seeking to influence how

another person voted. On an item of direct relevance to this study, female small donors were less

likely to attend a public meeting. And female repeat and female large donors were less likely to work for a party. Female donors were less likely than male donors to attempt to convince another person to contribute money to a particular candidate, and this was true of our overall sample, among Obama donors, among repeat donors, and among small and large donors.

Assessing the Democratic Party Advantage among Female Donors

Using the more general measures of party identification and ideology we also find evidence in both 2008 and 2012 that female Obama donors are more likely to be Strong

Democrats than to be Not So Strong Democrats or Independent leaning Democrats than male donors and in 2008 female McCain donors are more likely to be Strong Republicans than Not So

Strong Republicans or Independent Leaning Republicans than male donors.62 Among Obama

voters in 2008 women were also more likely than men to be strong and not-so-strong partisans.63

This was true again in 2012, for example, 40 percent of Obama female voters were Strong

Democrats compared to 32 percent of his male voters.64

Female Obama donors in 2008 were more likely to be liberal, including extremely liberal

than men who donated to Obama. Women who gave to McCain were more likely to say they

were extremely conservative than men who donated to McCain. In 2012, female Obama donors

were more likely to characterize themselves as extreme liberals while there were no ideology

differences between Romney male and female donors. Obama female voters were somewhat

more likely than male Obama voters to see themselves as liberal or very liberal and female

Romney voters were more likely to see themselves as very conservative or conservative, although the differences were modest.65

Male and Female Donor Responses to Messenger, Message and Medium

It would have been reasonable to assume that Hilary Clinton, much more than Barack

Obama, would have been the candidate to break the gender gap among donors. In fact she did better than Obama among itemized donors with 55 percent of her contributors being women compared to Obama’s 50 percent during the primaries. But given the historic nature of Clinton’s candidacy, Obama’s success among female donors is noteworthy. How did this happen? Our donor survey allows us to test the extent to which female donors differed from male donors generally, and more specifically, the extent to which female Obama donors were different from male Obama donors on a wide array of demographic, political and attitudinal variables. In this analysis we will find that candidate centered attributes mattered even more to female donors than male donors and especially to female Obama donors. The issues messages of the candidates are also part of the explanation for the survey in female donors. Another factor may have been that the internet helped with activation of this large number of new female donors and with their replacement by an even larger proportion of female Obama donors in 2012. We will show that the medium of the Internet is also important to understanding this phenomenon.

Messenger

The donors responding to our survey were asked a set of questions about their decision to become involved in the election, without specifically mentioning making financial contributions.

These reasons tapped a range of possible motivations that might have been different for men and women. Table 3 presents the percent who said the following items were “very important” to them.

Table 3

Possible Motives for Presidential Donor Involvement by Gender

Each cell represents the proportion of respondents marking “Very Important”

Obama McCain Obama Romney 2008 2008 2012 2012

Issue Positions 97 (94)* 96 (93) 97 (95)* 98 (94)**

Experience 39 (32)** 87 (82) 61 (47)** 92 (80)**

McCain/Romney story 5 (6) 45 (38) 20 (21) 64 (41)**

Obama story 34 (32) 36 (25)* 35 (29)** 44 (27)**

Obama Performance __ __ 83 (71)** 93 (88)*

Integrity 92 (86)** 95 (89)* 95 (84)** 98 (93)**

Judgment 97 (94)** 97 (92)* 93 (82)** 98 (91)**

International Symbol 86 (82)* 62 (58) 72 (55)** 73 (60)**

Role Model 67 (56)** 72 (58)** 66 (46)** 76 (63)**

Campaigns Never Cared About Me 23 (13)** 9 (5) 23 (12)** 6 (5)

Special Moment 48 (41)** 19 (10)** 43 (25)** 26 (16)**

Opponent Bad Choice 76 (72)* 90 (85) 92 (83)** 95 (92)

Note: Male proportions are in parentheses. Difference of proportions tests used by gender. *p<.05 **p<.01

Aspects of candidate appeal that are viewed as universally very important by donors to their involvement include integrity and judgment. Women donors were significantly more likely to cite these characteristics than men. Over 90 percent of female donors to both the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates said these were very important to them. Among females, experience was more important to McCain and Romney donors than to Obama donors, and more important to Obama donors in 2012 than to Obama donors in 2008. The Obama story was very

important to both Obama and Republican donors at about the same levels in both years, and the

percent saying it was very important does not change very much between 2008 and 2012. Gender

differences on this item are statistically significant for McCain donors in 2008 and Obama and

Romney donors in 2012. In contrast the McCain story was very important to only a small

fraction of Obama donors. In 2012 the Romney story was important to about the same

proportion of Obama and Romney donors. The gender difference between Romney male and

female donors on this item is statistically significant with women much more likely to cite it than men.

Negative motivation appears to have been important to donors’ involvement in both years

with 92 percent of Obama female donors and 95 percent of Romney female donors in 2012

indicating that “the opponent of the candidate I contributed to would be a bad choice for the

country.” McCain donors were similarly negatively motivated in 2008 while Obama donors were

less so. It is not surprising that donors see the danger of the opponent being elected as a very

important reason to support the preferred candidate in order to avert the opponent’s election. As

with voting, a primary consideration is the alternative candidate which may motivate you to vote

against that candidate and in this case support his opponent. Only Obama male and female

donors are significantly different from each other on this item.

There was much speculation that part of what explained the Obama surge in donors was a

sense of a “special moment,” an “historic candidacy,” etc. There is evidence that this was a

motivation in Table 3 as nearly half of Obama donors said it was very important. There was a

more than two-to-one difference between Obama and McCain donors on this item. But

apparently for Obama donors it was not a transitory motivation as 43 percent said it mattered to

them in 2012. The percent saying this among Romney female donors was 26 percent in 2012, up

from 19 percent for McCain in 2008. For all four sets of presidential nominee donors women

were significantly more likely than men to cite “special moment” as a reason for their

involvement.

There is an interesting juxtaposition of gender on the item that taps whether the donor

thought the campaign cared about them. For Obama female donors in 2008 and again in 2012 23

percent indicated that the view that “Campaigns in the past never cared about people like me”

was a very important reason from getting involved in the election, compared to 13 percent of

Obama’s male donors in 2008 and 12 percent in 2012, a statistically significant difference. Only

one-in-twenty of McCain and Romney male donors gave this response (just 6 percent of

Romney’s female donors were of this view and 9 percent of McCain’s female donors felt

campaigns saw this as a reason for involvement and the difference between the genders of

Republican donors on this item was insignificant. We also asked donors about particular reasons

they might have had for making donations in 2008 04 2012. Table 4 presents the data on these

items.

Table 4

Possible Presidential Donor Motivations by Gender

Obama McCain Obama Romney 2008 2008 2012 2012

Someone asked me 20 (16)** 12 (14) 13 (11) 11 (7)*

Extra Money 8 (11)* 4 (5) 7 (7) 2 (3)

Opponent Bad Choice 60 (62) 72 (70) 66 (69) 74 (75)

Inspired by Campaign (Campaign) 77 (67)** 16 (8)** 37 (26)** 14 (13)

Candidate Could Win (Candidate) 34 (34) 22 (25) 18 (21)* 21 (29)*

Candidate Qualified (Candidate) 81 (84) 71 (61)* 71 (68) 64 (71)

Candidate Represented Me (Purposive) 87 (83)* 72 (71) 81 (83) 69 (70)

Personally or Professionally Gain (Material) 2 (2) 0 (1) 1 (1) 1 (2)

Enjoy Politics (Solidary) 11 (11) 6 (5) 10 (11) 6 (5)

Other People Contributing (Solidary) 11 (7)** 2 (5) 4 (4) 3 (4)

Note: Male proportions are in parentheses. Difference of proportions tests used by gender. *p<.05 **p<.01

The most frequently cited motive for men and women giving was that “the candidate

represented me.” But aside from Obama 2008 donors the difference between men and women

on this item is not significant. We see this as consistent with the purposive or expressive motive

which is often cited as one of the primary motives for donating money to campaigns.66 Other

candidate centered motives like candidate qualifications were important to men and women with

the only significant difference between men and women among McCain 2008 donors. But less

important to donors were such candidate centered considerations as electability, again with little

differences by gender. Male donors to both Obama and Romney were significantly more likely

to say this in 2012.

The literature argues that donors give for solidary or group belonging reasons but few

donors in either 2008 or 2012 said this mattered to them.67 Similarly, few said they gave because

they “enjoy politics,” or because others they knew were giving.

Having extra money was more a motive for women than men giving to Obama but

comparatively few of either gender mentioned this. Finally the literature argues that donors give

to benefit themselves personally or professionally, often labeled a “material motivation.” Very

few donors in either year gave this as one of their motivations for contributing.

Both male and female Obama donors were much more likely than McCain donors to

report contributing as a result of having been “inspired by the campaign this year.” Gender

differences were statistically significant for McCain and Obama in 2008 and Obama in 2012.

The difference between men and women on this dimension is substantial. In 2008, among all

presidential donors, about two thirds (68 percent) of women cited the campaign as inspiring,

compared to less than half (49 percent) of men. Obama female donors were more likely than

Obama male donors to have been inspired by both election campaigns (77 percent to 67 percent

in 2008 and 37 to 26 in 2012). In 2008, McCain female donors were more inspired by his

campaign (16 percent) than his male donors (8 percent). For Romney donors the male/female

difference is not statistically significant with only 14 percent of women and 13 percent of men saying an inspiring campaign motivated them to give in 2012. For donors from both parties, the proportion of donors being motivated by inspirational nature of the campaign dropped significantly in 2012. While less frequently mentioned, especially among female Republican donors, we find intriguing the nearly one-quarter of respondents who said they gave because

“campaigns in the past never cared about people like me.”

Another way the messenger could have been important to campaign contributions from women in 2008 and 2012 was female donors identifying with female presidential candidates seeking the nomination and becoming the eventual vice presidential nominee. The 2008 election cycle provided an unusual draw for potential female contributors to presidential candidates. Prior research in other settings has found the presence of female candidates and office holders increases the level of participation among women, especially younger women.68 This

expectation came from the experience of previous candidates, like Geradline Ferraro who ran as the vice presidential candidate with Walter Mondale in 1984. In her memoir she describes the impact of her nomination on fundraising.

It was astonishing. I ended up raising a record $2.1 million from women-sponsored

events, another record two million dollars from direct mail requests, and another two

million from general events. All in all, the Democratic National Committee ended up

with twenty-six thousand new names to add to its list of supporters, a legacy no other

candidacy has ever produced.69

Senator Hillary Clinton was the presumed front-runner for the Democratic nomination.

Given her success in winning a U.S. Senate seat in New York and the advantage of her

husband’s substantial network of donors from 1992 and 1996, she was well positioned to secure

the nomination and be competitive if nominated. More than half (51 percent) of her donors were

women. 70

The fact that women were supportive of both Obama and Clinton may reflect the historic

nature of both candidacies. Scholar JoEllen Lind asserts that age needs to be combined with

gender for accurate analysis. She finds that the majority of younger women donors supported

Obama rather than Clinton.71 Our survey of donors giving more than $200 to Obama and Clinton during the primary period confirms this, with Obama getting most of the contributions of female

donors ages 18–30. The mean contribution for female donors was also larger for those giving to

Obama than to Clinton. Among those ages 31–45, the mean Clinton donor gave $890 and the

mean Obama donor gave $942. For those ages 46–60, the difference is larger, with the mean

Clinton donor giving $1,203 and the mean Obama donor giving $2,993. Among those over age

61, the mean amount given was $643 to Clinton and $807 to Obama. When looking at gender

and contributions to Obama and Clinton in 2007–08, age is important, but at all age levels

Obama has more female donors than Clinton. At all age levels Obama’s numbers of female

donors in 2008 exceeded Clinton’s by about two-to-one, with the gap lessening somewhat with

increasing age.

On the question of the extent of donor migration from Democratic losing candidates

(Clinton, Biden, Edwards, etc.) to Obama in the 2008 general election one of our associates,

Robert Richards did a Cox Survival Model analysis of each Democratic candidate’s primary

donors and the probability they donated to Obama in the general election. He finds donors to

other democratic candidates less likely to donate to Obama than the Obama primary donors or

donors who had given to no candidate at all in the primaries. Among those who had

contributecontributed to a Democratic candidate other than Obama in the primaries Richards

finds that “Hilary Clinton’s primary donors were even more unlikely to give to Obama than the

Biden or Edwards donors.”72

The nomination in 2008 of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential nominee was a

historic first for the GOP. Her presence on the ticket was expected to generate a substantial

number of new donors, especially small donors to the McCain-Palin ticket. Carla Eudy, who

served as a senior advisor to McCain’s campaign, said Palin “did not bring a ‘list’ of major

donors with her but she did bring excitement to the campaign which we definitely needed.”73

The Palin fundraising events, most “a little bit lower ticket,” were consistently “off the charts in

attendance.”74 McCain’s finance director, Susan Nelson, describes Palin as “a gift that kept giving.”75 In terms of donation method, Nelson sees the Palin effect more among Internet and direct mail donors.

There is some reason to suspect that the example of Ferraro might not apply in 2008 and

2012. One observer writes that among younger women, “the majority of them enthusiastically

opted for Barack Obama, the male candidate, when given the historic choice to vote for a

28 woman.”76 In the general election setting, “issues and policy positions mattered more to women voters than did the gender of the vice presidential candidate.”77 In other research on the Palin effect, Jake Haselswerdt, Sarah Binder, and Forrest Maltzman conclude that “a female conservative candidate may be more likely to win over votes from the right end of the political spectrum than a similar male conservative candidate, but she would not be better positioned to attract voters from the left than a male candidate.”78 Susan J. Carroll comes to a different conclusion: “In the end, issues and policy positions mattered more to women voters than did the gender of the vice presidential candidate.”79

Message

Issues, or what we are calling message, also matter to donors. Evidence for this is found in the very high proportion of donors to Obama, McCain and Romney who say the candidates issue positions matter. We also asked about particular issues and their importance to the donor.

Table 5 presents the percent of respondents who said each issue was very important in 2008.

Table 5

Importance of Issues to Presidential Donors by Gender, 2008

Each cell represents the proportion of donors marking “Very Important”

Obama McCain

Afghanistan 51 (54) 55 (58)

Iraq 73 (75) 71 (65)

Economy 87 (86) 81 (83)

Energy 69 (69) 53 (56)

Healthcare 83 (76)** 55 (43)*

Abortion 59 (38)** 56 (48)

Same-Sex Marriage 48 (36)** 50 (47)

Immigration 38 (34)* 80 (74)

Note: Male proportions are in parentheses. Difference of proportions tests used by gender. For 2008, the Afghanistan, Iraq, economy, and energy policy categories come from the “How important were the following issues in determining your vote in the November 2008 presidential election?” question. The healthcare, abortion, same-sex marriage, and immigration categories come from the “How important to you are each of the following policy issues?” question. *p<.05 **p<.01

Issues on which we see differences between donors to the two party’s nominees are energy, healthcare, and immigration. It is on immigration that we see the largest differences by party, and between Obama female and male donors. Clearly the economy was the most important issue across election cycles and candidates, but there are not significant gender differences between male and female donors on this issue. In a survey of voters following the

2008 election the economy was seen as the most important issue by McCain and Obama donors compared to all other issues but it was the most important issue to more than 70 percent of

Obama voters compared to about a third of McCain voters.80Abortion was more important to

Obama female donors but nearly as important to McCain female donors. It was less important to

Obama male donors and the same was true for same-sex marriage. On both abortion and same-

sex marriage Obama female and male donors are statistically different in the extent to which they

see the issue as very important, with women more likely to see the issue as very important.

Induced abortion has long been a salient issue, especially for women.81 John Green and others, describing donors to congressional candidates in 1978 and 1996, said women were more likely than men to “hold liberal positions on policy issues, including abortion, taxes and the environment.”82 Abortion is also salient to partisanship for women.83 In terms of their position

on the issue, 43 percent of female donors in 2008 compared to 32 percent of male donors said

abortion should “always be legal,” rather than legal in most or some specified cases or always

illegal.84 Among Obama donors, 51 percent in 2008 and 55 percent in 2012 said abortion should

always be legal, with female donors to Obama holding this view more frequently than men in

both years. Abortion was seen as a very important issue by 59 percent of women compared to 38

percent of men. Interest groups have formed around the abortion issue and some have been

visible in fundraising for candidates. In our sample of all 2008 donors, 21 percent indicated they

belong to pro-choice groups, and among women that proportion rises to 32 percent. A much smaller proportion of donors belong to pro-life groups (4 percent), with 3 percent of women so

affiliating.

Research on who contributes through female donor networks like EMILY’s List

(Democratic and pro-choice),85 WISH List (GOP and pro-choice), and the Susan B. Anthony

List (GOP and pro-life) has found that overall these networks tend to help Democratic candidates

more.86 Michael H. Crespin and Janna L. Dietz have written that these networks have helped

women become more habituated to giving money.87 One study of donors to EMILY’s List found

substantial turnover in this group (75 percent), with three-quarters of donors to the list in 2004

being first-time donors, and most donors giving under $1000 to the List.88 In our 2008 survey we

find that 9 percent of female donors were encouraged to contribute by pro-life groups, and 39

percent of female donors were encouraged to contribute by pro-choice groups.

On the abortion issue in 2012 a series of events put the GOP on the defensive on women’s reproductive issues. Whether health plans should include contraception, a Virginia law requiring some women to undergo transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion, and two

Republican U.S. Senate candidates’ objectionable views on rape all amplified the Democratic

Party’s assertion that the Republicans were mounting a “war on women.” While this issue may have resonated with voters,89 abortion was actually less frequently seen as very important to

31 donors in 2012 than in 2008. Abortion was seen as an important issue to nearly half of Obama donors (48 percent) in 2012 compared to 31 percent of his male donors.

Table 6 presents the percent who said the issue was very important to them in 2012.

Table 6

Importance of Issues to Presidential Donors by Gender, 2012

Each cell represents the proportion of donors marking “Very Important”

Obama Romney

Afghanistan 44 (47) 55(38)**

Iraq 45 (47) 53 (39)**

Economy 85 (85) 94 (95)

Debt 40 (31)** 93 (92)

Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) 87 (80)** 74 (71)

Abortion 50 (32)** 40 (30)*

Same-Sex Marriage 43 (30)** 33 (29)

Foreign Policy 57 (51)** 67 (61)

Immigration 48 (40)** 67 (50)**

Source: 2008 and 2012 donor surveys. Note: Male proportions are in parentheses. Difference of proportions tests used by gender. For 2012, the Afghanistan and Iraq categories come from the “How important to your decision to get involved in the 2012 election were US foreign policy actions in the following countries?” question. The economy, debt, Obamacare, abortion, gay marriage, foreign policy, and immigration categories come from the “How important were the following issues in determining your vote in the November 2012 presidential election?” question. *p<.05 **p<.01 **For 2012, the Afghanistan and Iraq categories come from the “How important to your decision to get involved in the 2012 election were US foreign policy actions in the following countries?” question. The economy, debt, Obamacare, abortion, gay marriage, foreign policy, and immigration categories come

32 from the “How important were the following issues in determining your vote in the November 2012 presidential election?” question.

In 2012, as in 2008, donors to both nominees saw the economy as very important. But

gender differences on the economy as an issue are again statistically insignificant. Only Obama

female donors ranked another issue as more important than the economy and for these donors

that was health care. Obama female donors were significantly more likely than Obama male

donors to see health care as very important in 2012. Romney male and female donors are not

statistically different on this issue. This is somewhat consistent with past studies of gender and

public opinion, which have found women to be generally more supportive of favoring

government-provided health care and family services.90 The extensive study of public opinion

surveys over time by Robert Shapiro and Harpreet Mahajan found an enduring gender gap on

issues like health care, education, and social welfare generally.91 Among donors in 2012 the gender gap was between parties and between Obama male and female donors.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were important issues in both the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections. In public opinion generally “a gender difference was evident in women’s and men’s attitudes towards the war in Iraq.”92 In terms of the importance of the Iraq and

Afghanistan wars to donors in 2008 and 2012, men and women both saw the wars as important

issues. Almost three-quarters (73 percent) of women saw the war in Iraq as very important, and

70 percent of men held this view. Fifty-four percent of men saw the war in Afghanistan as very

important, and 53 percent of women did so as well. Obama female and male donors in 2012 were not significantly different from each other on Afghanistan or Iraq, but Romney’s female donors were significantly more likely to see these wars as important.93

Female donors were more likely than male donors to see both the war in Iraq and the war

in Afghanistan as mistakes. More than four-fifths (84 percent) of women donors said “the U.S.

should have stayed out of Iraq,” compared to 74 percent of men. Just over one-quarter of women

(28 percent) held the view that “the U.S. should have stayed out of Afghanistan,” while 16 percent of men held this view. Women were also less of the view that military action was justified in Iraq or Afghanistan. Female Obama donors were less likely to feel the war in

Afghanistan was justified (71 percent) than female McCain donors (85 percent).

Immigration mattered more to Romney’s donors than Obama’s and more to his female donors than his male donors. Obama’s female donors in 2012 were more likely to see immigration as important than were his male donors. This difference is statistically significant.

Medium

There is a puzzle in the surge in female donors to Obama. The conventional wisdom in fundraising is the best predictor of a future donor is a prior donor. Since most prior candidacies relied on male donors more than females, the universe of prior donors was overwhelmingly male.

How did Obama activate so many new donors, many of whom were women? One way he did that was by reaching out to people who had not been presidential donors in the past, often through the Internet. As discussed, did the structural change of the Internet play a role in the expanded participation by females as donors?

Prior to the 2008 election cycle, some have speculated that the Internet may be a way to engage more women in making campaign contributions. The Women’s Campaign Forum

Foundation research done by Lake after the 2006 election asserts that the Internet may encourage greater engagement of women in political contributions because it facilitates what the report lists as the “Five I’s” important to women: “Impact, Inspiration, Information, Inclusion, and Interaction.”94

Our survey inquired how donors were first asked to give. Options given respondents

included over the telephone, through the mail, by email or over the Internet, or in person, and

some indicated they gave without being asked. We find that women were more likely than men to be initially asked to contribute via the Internet. Moreover, the Internet grew in importance

between 2008 and 2012 for both male and female donors. Men were more likely than women to

be initially asked to give through the mail, and fundraising through the mail was more common for both genders in 2012 than in 2008. More than one-third of men and women reported giving in

2008 without having been asked. This again suggests a substantial activation of donors that is not consistent with the conventional view of fundraising. In 2012 the percent saying they gave without being asked dropped by more than half. We assume these donors from 2008 were part of the contact lists for soliciting contributions in 2012. There is evidence for this in our panel study of donrosdonors who gave in 2008 and then gave again in 2012. Three-quarters of those

who gave in 2008 without being asked to give and who gave again in 2012 were asked to give in

2012. The Internet was the most frequent way women were initially asked to give in 2008 and

2012. Table 7 compares Obama and McCain/Romney presidential donors in 2008 and 2012 in

terms of how they were asked to give.

Table 7

Method of First Solicitation by Gender: Obama Donors

Male Female Male Female 2008 2008 2012 2012 In person 4 3 2 1 Over the phone 5 4 2 4 In the mail 18 14 24 28 Via text message NA NA 1 0 Via email or the internet 35 44 61 659 Gave without being asked 37 35 10 9

Source: 2008 & 2012 Donor Surveys

Method of First Solicitation by Gender: McCain / Romney Donors

Male Female Male Female 2008 2008 2012 2012 In person 4 3 2 3 Over the phone 9 8 9 10 In the mail 51 58 50 48 Via text message NA NA 0 0 Via email or the internet 12 11 17 23 Gave without being asked 25 19 22 17

Source: 2008 & 2012 Donor Surveys

In 2008, 72 percent of Obama male donors and 79 percent of Obama female donors were either asked to give via Internet or gave without being asked to give which may be due to

Internet tools like Facebook, YouTube, and campaign websites. Writing about the Internet,

journalist Jeanne Cummings identified it as a partial explanation for the surge in female donors,

particularly to Obama. She contends that the Internet allows women to interact with candidates

and campaigns in ways they prefer.95 This is a substantial departure from the way donors have

been asked to give in the past which was often through the mail and on the phone.96 In contrast,

64 percent of McCain male donors and more than two-thirds of his female donors (69 percent)

were asked to contribute by mail, phone, or in person, while only 12 percent of his donors were

asked to give via Internet. Romney only marginally improves on McCain’s use of the Internet

as a mode of raising money in 2012, relying instead on mail and phone calls. The 2012 Obama

campaign, in contrast, significantly ramped up Internet as the primary fundraising tool with 61

percent of female donors and 64 percent of mail donors saying they were first asked to give via

the Internet. We do not have data on how men and women prefer to interact with candidates and

36 campaigns, but we do have evidence on the self-reported levels of interest in Internet use by gender in 2008 and 2012 which is found in table 8.

Table 8

Male Female Male Female

(2008) (2008) (2012) (2012)

Seldom/ never 6 5 5 6

Less than once a week 1 1 1 2

Once a week 2 1 1 1

Several times a week 5 7 5 5

About once a day 12 12 10 13

Several times each day 74 73 78 72

Source: 2008 and 2012 Donor Survey

In 2008 and 2012 we find little difference between the sexes in their use of the Internet.

This was also the case in the 2008 Pew Internet and American Life survey, although our sample of donors was about twice as likely to report using the Internet several times a day than were respondents to the Pew survey of the general public.97 As discussed above an important distinguishing feature of the Obama campaign in 2008 and even more in 2012 was use of the

Internet, but this was not isolated to men. Rather men and women both in nearly equal proportions were invited to contribute via the Internet. The fact that there is little difference between men and women in Internet use raises the question of why more campaigns have not

seen it as a way to engage donors, especially women who historically have been less active as

donors.

The medium of the Internet was an important activation tool for Democrats generally and for the Obama campaign in particular in both 2008 and 2012. Obama’s online donors were 56 percent female in 2008 and 55 percent female in 2012. His online donors were much more likely to be new donors than his off-line donors (62 percent compared to 39 percent) and in that year 51 percent of them gave without being asked, ten percent greater than his offline donors. Just over one-quarter (26 percent) of McCain’s and Romney’s online donors were women in 2008 and

2012. Thirty percent of McCain’s off-line donors were women in 2008 and 35 percent of

Romney’s off-line donors were women in 2012.

There is no evidence that either McCain or Romney were able to use the Internet nearly as effectively as Obama to attract new female donors. In 2008 over three-fifths of Obama’s new online donors were women compared to 41 percent of McCain’s new online donors. Romney had an even worse showing with only 31 percent of his new online donors in 2012 being women.

The gender gap in female unsolicited donors is 25 percent in 2008 and 2012. We thus have a sharp contrast in the way Democrats and Republicans donors use the new medium of the internet, while there is also the possibility that a more successful use might have activated more

GOP donors. Obama’s success in using the Internet was not a secret by 2012 which makes

Romney’s lack of improvement in using the Internet striking.

Conclusion

As we have demonstrated, one of the most remarkable developments of the 2008 election cycle was the surge in female donors. That more women than men gave to Obama is all the more noteworthy given the record-setting number of donors to the Obama campaign. It is also more

38 remarkable because it happened in a contest with the most competitive female presidential candidate in U.S. history, who herself was highly successful in activating female donors. How did this happen? As elsewhere in this book, we reason that it was the combination of the message of the candidate, the messengers (candidates), and the use of new media to interact with donors.

There was uncertainty about the extent to which Obama could repeat his fundraising success form 2008 in 2012. Would the large number of female donors, many of them new donors and small donors remain? The recession and continued high unemployment not only damaged Obama’s favorability among the public and voters, but would it discourage donors to the extent they did not give again? Because many of Obama’s donors were concerned about issues like the war in Iraq in 2008, with lingering problems in Iraq and around the world would female donors be so disillusioned that they did not contribute in 2012. We have shown evidence that female donors in 2012 remained an important and active part of Obama’s continued fundraising success. These female donors were less likely to be inspired by the campaign in

2012 and there were fewer female donors who gave without being asked, an indicator of a compelling candidacy, but there were other motivations that were more important in 2012 than in

2008, like the opponent being seen as a bad choice.

There is strong evidence for the importance of the persona of Barack Obama as part of the explanation for the large number of female donors to his campaign. Both women and men reported being inspired by the campaign. Just as candidate appeal is important in understanding voting behavior, so too it is important in understanding donor behavior.

The medium of the Internet was also important to the activation of female donors to

Obama in 2008. This was not because women are more heavy Internet users in general or even

among our sample of donors. But since so many more of the female donors were new donors, the success of the Obama campaign in using the tools of new media to engage, solicit, and reinforce donor behavior was a critical element. Evidence for this is found in the large number of female donors initially asked to contribute via the Internet. If the old fundraising adage of mostly asking those who previously contributed had been applied, women would likely have remained a minority at all giving levels. Only by expanding the universe of possible donors could the surge in female donors occur. And the most efficient and effective way to do that was via the web, with blogs, viral messaging, You-Tube postings, and so on, all leading to engagement with the campaign and, eventually, to an ask for a contribution.

1 Sandra Baxter and Marjorie Lansing, Women and Politics: The Visible Majority (Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press, 1983).

2 Jeff Manza and Clem Brooks, “The Gender Gap in U.S. Presidential Elections: When? Why?

Implications?” American Journal of Sociology 103, no. 5 (March, 1998): 1237.

3 These estimates are based on media exit polls. See Susan J. Carroll, “Voting Choices: The

Politics of the Gender Gap,” in Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics,

ed. Susan J. Carroll and Richard L. Fox (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 126.

See also, Center for American Women and Politics, “The Gender Gap: Voting Choices in

Presidential Elections,” 2012, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, accessed August

14, 2014,http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/voters/documents/GGPresVote.pdf; Leonie

Huddy and Erin Cassese. “On the Complex and Varied Political Effects of Gender” in The

Oxford Handbook of American Public Opinion and the Media eds. Robert Y. Shapiro and

Lawrence R. Jacobs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011; Leonie Huddy, Erin Cassese, and

Mary-Kate Lizotte. “Gender, Public Opinion, and Political Reasoning” in Political Women and

American Democracy eds. Christina Wolbrecht, Karen Beckwith, and Lisa Baldez (New York:

Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 31-49; Leonie Huddy, Cassese, Erin, and Lizotte, Mary-

Kate. “Sources of Political Unity and Disunity among Women: Placing the Gender Gap in

Perspective” in Voting The Gender Gap ed. Lois Duke Whittaker. (Urbana, IL: University of

Illinois Press, 2008)

4 “Obama’s Election Redraws America’s Electoral Divide,” CNN, November 5, 2008, accessed

July 11, 2012; for 2012, see: Jeffrey Jones, “Gender Gap in 2012 Vote is Largest in Gallup’s

History,” Gallup, November 9, 2012 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/158588/gender-gap-2012- vote-largest-gallup-history.aspx). http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/05/election.president/index.html?iref=allsearch.

5 Marjorie Connelly, “The Election; Who Voted: A Portrait of American Politics, 1976–2000,”

New York Times, November 12, 2000, p. 4

6 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract: 2006, p. 247; CNN, “U.S. President National Exit

Poll,” 2004.

7 Susan Welch, “Women as Political Animals? A Test of Some Explanations for Male–Female

Political Participation Differences,” American Journal of Political Science 21, no. 4 (1977): 711–

730, 712–714; Kay Lehman Schlozman, Nancy Burns, and Sidney Verba, “Gender and the

Pathways to Participation: The Role of Resources,” Journal of Politics 56, no. 4 (1994): 963–

990; Susan Bourque and Jean Grossholtz, “Politics as an Unnatural Practice: Political Science

Looks at Female Participation,” Politics and Society 4, no. 2 (Winter 1974): 255–66.

8 Julie Dolan, Melissa Deckman, and Michele L. Swers, Women and Politics: Paths to Power and

Political Influence (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2007), 78–79.

9 Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry Brady, Voice and Equality: Civic

Voluntarism in American Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), 254–55.

10 Nancy Burns, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba, The Private Roots of Public

Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press, 2001), 1.

11 Clifford W. Brown Jr., Lynda W. Powell, and Clyde Wilcox, Serious Money: Fundraising and

Contributing in Presidential Nomination Campaigns (New York: Cambridge University Press,

1995), 40–41; Peter L. Francia, John C. Green, Paul S. Herrnson, Lynda W. Powell, and Clyde

Wilcox, The Financiers of Congressional Elections: Investors, Ideologues, and Intimates (New

York: Columbia University Press, 2003), 29.

12 Robert Boatright and Michael J. Malbin, “Political Contribution Tax Credits and Citizen

Participation,” American Politics Research 33, no. 6 (2008): 801.

13 Margaret M. Conway, Political Participation in the United States, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC:

Congressional Quarterly Press, 2000), 37–38.

14 Nancy Burns, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba, The Private Roots of Public

Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press, 2001), 9.

15 Others have questioned whether women may not be donating on their own but rather for male relatives. [Who says this?] We were not able to test the validity of this assertion.

16 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

17 SpeechNow.org, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010), and

FEC, Advisory Opinion 2010-09, (Club for Growth) July 22, 2010

(http://saos.nictusa.com/aodocs/AO%202010-09.pdf ); FEC, Advisory Opinion 2010-11,

(Commonsense Ten) July 22, 2010 (http://saos.nictusa.com/aodocs/AO%202010-11.pdf ).

18 Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry Brady, Voice and Equality: Civic

Voluntarism In American Politics (Harvard University Press, 1995), 254–55; these authors also

find that among religiously active individuals, “there is no difference in the average number of

hours dedicated to voluntary action” (p. 257–59). They also find a gender gap not only in

attendance at religious services, with women more likely to attend services regularly, but also a

gap in volunteerism, with women being “more likely to give time to educational, charitable, or

social activities associated with their church or synagogue.” Other research by Sondra Shaw-

Hardy and Martha A. Taylor confirms women to have surpassed men as donors to philanthropic

causes. See, Sondra Shaw-Hardy and Martha A. Taylor, Women and Philanthropy: Boldly

Shaping a Better World (San Francisco: Josey-Bass, 2010), 19-20.

19 Holly Hall, “Cultivating Philanthropy by Women.” The Chronicle of Philanthropy (December

31, 1999) http://philanthropy.com/artikcle/cultivating-Philanthropy-by/60269/

20 Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry Brady, Voice and Equality: Civic

Voluntarism in American Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995) 259–60.

21 Women’s Campaign Forum Foundation, “Vote With Your Purse,” 2010, accessed November

8, 2011, http://www.wcffoundation.org/pages/research/vote-with-your-purse.html.

22 Vote With Your Purse: Harnessing the Power of Women’s Political Giving for the 2008

Election and Beyond, (Washington, D.C.: Women’s Campaign Forum Foundation, 2007), 10,

accessed August 11, 2014July 11, 2012,

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/womenandpolitics/pages/50/attachments/original/1378712

514/wcff-vote-with-your-purse-2007.pdf?1378712514

23 Ibid, p. 10.

24 Wesley Y. Joe, Michael J. Malbin, Clyde Wilcox, Peter W. Brusoe, and Jamie P. Pimlott, “Do

Small Donors Improve Representation? Some Answers from Recent Gubernatorial and State

Legislative Elections” (paper, American Political Science Association annual meeting, Boston,

MA, August 28–31, 2008).

25 Aaron Kiersh, “Women Still Lag Behind Men in Campaign Contributions, Study Says,”

Center for Responsive Politics, 2009, accessed June 19, 2009,

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/women-still-lag-behind-men-in.html; Clifford W.

Brown, Lynda W. Powell and Clyde Wilcox, Serious Money (New York: Cambridge University

Press, 1995), 40–45.

26 Alexandra Cooper and Baishakhi Taylor, “Distaff Donors: A First Look at Female

Contributors” (paper, Midwest Political Science Association annual meeting, Chicago, IL, April

3, 2008).

27 John H. Aldrich, Melanie Freeze, and Jacob Michael Montgomery, “Amateurs Ascendant: The

Changing Donor Pool 1972–2004” (paper, Midwest Political Science Association annual

meeting, April 3–6, 2008, Chicago, IL).

28 A very small number gave to both partiesparties’ nominees—less than 1 percent in 2008 and

l3ss than .03 percent in 2012. [RA Verify]

29 Candice J. Nelson, “Financing the 2012 Presidential General Election,” in David B. Magleby,

ed. Financing the 2012 Election. (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2014). Pp. 123-42.

30 Edwin Aguilar, Benjamin O. Fordham, and G. Patrick Lynch, “The Foreign Policy Beliefs of

Political Contributors: A Post-Cold War Analysis,” Social Science Quarterly 82 (2001): 89–104,

91–92.

31 Clyde Wilcox, “Internet Fundraising in 2008: A New Model?” The Forum 6, no. 1 (2008):

Article 6.

32 John H. Aldrich, Melanie Freeze, and Jacob Michael Montgomery, “Amateurs Ascendant: The

Changing Donor Pool 1972–2004” (paper, Midwest Political Science Association annual

meeting, Chicago, IL, April 3–6, 2008), 19.

33 Ibid.

34 Peter L. Francia, John C. Green, Paul S. Herrnson, Lynda W. Powell, and Clyde Wilcox, The

Financiers of Congressional Elections: Investors, Ideologues, and Intimates (New York:

Columbia University Press, 2003).

35 Ilana Goldman, president of the Women’s Campaign Forum, stated on an ABC News blog,

“The number of women that are giving at the presidential level is growing by leaps and bounds,

but when you look down the ticket at congressional races, women are still just a third of political

giving.” See Jennifer Parker, “Women Increase Political Donations in 2008 Presidential Race,”

ABC News, September 23, 2008, accessed October 10, 2011,

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/women-increase.html

36 John Green, Paul S. Herrnson, Lynda Powell, and Clyde Wilcox, “Women Big Donors

Mobilized in Congressional Elections,” June 8, 1999, accessed May 13, 2010,

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/herrnson/women.html.

37 Peter L. Francia, John C. Green, Paul S. Herrnson, Lynda W. Powel and Clyde Wilcox, The

Financiers of Congressional Elections: Investors, Ideologues and Intimates. (New York:

Columbia University Press, 2003) p. 29.

38 Michael H. Crespin and Jana L Dietz, “If You Can’t Join ‘Em, Beat “Em: The Gender Gap in

Individual Donations to Congressional Candidates.” Political Research Quarterly, 63, no 3

(2010): 581-593. http://prq.sagepub.com/content/63/3/581.full.pdf.html.

39 These data are similar to the CCES data on party contributions. In the CCES in 2008, women were 39% of Republican party committee donors and in 2012, they were 41% (Democratic party donors were 47% female in 2008 and 54% female in 2012).

40 Nancy Burns, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba, The Private Roots of Public

Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press, 2001) 263.

41 Nancy Burns, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba, The Private Roots of Public

Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press, 2001), 9.

42 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2011, 130th ed. (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2010), 458.

43 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2010, 130th ed. (Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2010), 459.

44 After controlling for characteristics such as job experience, education, occupation and other measures of productivity, the U.S. Census Bureau study found this discrepancy. See U.S. Census

Bureau, “Men’s and Women’s Earnings by State: 2008 American Community Survey,” accessed

February 22, 2010, http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/acsbr08-3.pdf. The U.S. Department

of Commerce White House Council on Women and Girls estimates the difference at 75 percent.

See U.S. Department of Commerce and the Executive Office of the President, Women in

America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being (White House Council on Women and

Girls, 2011), 32, accessed July 11, 2012, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/Women_in_America.pdf

45 US Census Bureau, "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States:

2012"(2013), p. 7.

46 U.S. Department of Commerce and the Executive Office of the President, Women in

America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being (White House Council on Women and

Girls, 2011), 19, accessed July 11, 2012, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/Women_in_America.pdf. See also U.S.

Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2011, 129th ed. (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office), 187.

47 Catalist, “Women in Law in the U.S.,” September 2009, accessed February 18, 2010, http://222.catalist .org/publication/246/women-in-law-in-the-us.

48 Princeton Review, Best 290 Business Schools: 2008 Edition (New York: Random House,

2007).

49 Alliance for Board Diversity, “New Report Finds Little Change in Diversity on Corporate

Boards,” Press Release, January 17, 2008.

50 Nancy Burns, Kay Lehman Schlozman and Sidney Verba, The Private Roots of Public Action:

Gender, Equality, and Political Participation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

2001), 16–17.

51 Nancy Burns, Kay Lehman Schlozman and Sidney Verba, The Private Roots of Public Action:

Gender, Equality, and Political Participation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

2001), 8.

52 CCES data

53 Alexandra Cooper and Baishakhi Taylor, “Distaff Donors: A Preliminary Look at Female

Contributors to Presidential Candidates in the 2000 and 2004 Election Cycles” (paper, Midwest

Political Science Association annual meeting, Chicago, IL, April 3–6, 2008).

54 Nancy Burns, Kay Lehman Schlozman and Sidney Verba, The Private Roots of Public Action:

Gender, Equality, and Political Participation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

2001), 8.

55 CCES data.

56 CCES data.

57 CCES data.

58 Nancy Burns, Kay Lehman Schlozman and Sidney Verba, The Private Roots of Public Action:

Gender, Equality, and Political Participation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

2001), 101-05.

59 Among all donors in 2008, a Pearson Chi2 test of differences by gender on this item yields a p-value of less than

.01, suggesting that the distributions of the responses to the “interest during the campaign” question are significantly different by gender. An individual proportions test for that difference yields a p-value of less than .001

60 a Chi2 test on gender differences on this item yields a p-value of less than .01 and an individual proportions test yields a p-value of less than .0001.

61 CCES data. Obama male voter were 52 percent interested most of the time, 33 percent for

women. McCain male voters were 67 percent on this measure and his female voters 41 percent.

62 Very few pure Independents are donors and very few partisans, including Independent leaning

partisans, donate to the candidate from the other party.

63 CCES 2008. Of women 65 percent were Strong Democrats or Not Strong Democrats, men 61

percent. Among women 66 percent were Strong Republican or Not Strong Republicans, 58

percent for men.

64 CCES data.

65 CCES data. The difference between men and women for Obama was 3 percent when we combine very

liberal and liberal and the difference for Romney was 5 percent, again when we combine very

conservative and conservative.

66 Clifford W. Brown Jr., Lynda W. Powell, and Clyde Wilcox, Serious Money: Fundraising and

Contributing in Presidential Nomination Campaigns (New York: Cambridge University Press,

1995).

Peter L. Francia, John C. Green, Paul S. Herrnson, Lynda W. Powell, and Clyde Wilcox, The

Financiers of Congressional Elections: Investors, Ideologues, and Intimates (New York:

Columbia University Press, 2003).

Peter B. Clark and James Q. Wilson, “Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations,”

Administrative Science Quarterly 6 (September 1961):129–66.

Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry Brady, Voice and Equality: Civic

Voluntarism in American Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995),

Steven J. Rosenstone and John Mark Hansen, Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in

America (New York: Longman, 2003).

67 Ibid.

68 Christina Wolbrecht and David E. Campbell, “Leading by Example: Female Members of

Parliament as Political Role Models,” American Journal of Political Science 51, no. 4 (October

2007): 928, 933.

69 Geraldine A. Ferraro, Ferraro: My Story (New York: Bantam Books, 1985), 194–95.

70 Ellen L. Weintraub and Jason K. Levine, “Campaign Finance and the 2008 Elections: How

Small Change(s) Can Really Add Up,” St. John’s Journal of Legal Commentary 24, no. 2

(October 2009): 471–472. Weintraub and Levine cite another source of their data:

OpenSecrets.Org, “Hillary Clinton: Donor Demographics,” July 13, 2009, accessed October 10,

2011, http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordemCID.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00000019.

71 JoEllen Lind, “The Clinton/Palin Phenomenon and Young Women Voters,” Hamline Journal of Public Policy and Law 30, no. 2 (2009): 513–548, 522.

72 Robert Richards, “Divisive Primaries and Sore Losers: Democratic Primary Donor Retention in the General Election.” Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science

Association, Chicago IL, April 12-15, 2012.

73 Carla Eudy, interview by David B. Magleby, November 8, 2011.

74 Susan Nelson, interview by David B. Magleby, November 8, 2011.

75 Susan Nelson, interview by David B. Magleby, November 8, 2011.

76 JoEllen Lind, “The Clinton/Palin Phenomenon and Young Women Voters,” Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy 30, no. 2 (Spring 2009): 513–548, 522.

77 Susan J. Carroll, “Voting Choices: The Politics of the Gender Gap,” in Gender and Elections:

Shaping the Future of American Politics, ed. Susan J. Carroll and Richard L. Fox (New York:

Cambridge University Press, 2010), 122.

78 Jake Haselswerdt, Sarah Binder, and Forrest Maltzman, “Playing the Gender Card: Ideology,

Gender, and Vote Choice” (paper, Midwest Political Science Association annual meeting,

Chicago, IL, April 22–25, 2010).

79 Susan J. Carroll, “Voting Choices: The Politics of the Gender Gap,” in Gender and Elections:

Shaping the Future of American Politics, ed. Susan J. Carroll and Richard L. Fox (New York:

Cambridge University Press, 2010), 122.

80 CCES, 2008

81 Benjamin Highton, “Policy Voting in Senate Elections: The Case of Abortion,” Political

Behavior 26, no. 2 (June 2004): 187.

82 John Green, Paul S. Herrnson, Lynda Powell and Clyde Wilcox, “Women Big Donors

Mobilized in Congressional Elections,” June 8, 1999, accessed May 13, 2010,

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/herrnson/women.html.

83 Barbara Norrander and Clyde Wilcox, The Gender Gap in Ideology, Political Behavior 30

(2008): 519.

84 The other options are “abortion should be legal most of the time,” “abortion should be made

illegal except in cases of rape, incest, and to save the mother’s life,” and “abortion should be

made illegal without any exceptions.”

85 Founded by Ellen Malcolm, EMILY’s List facilitates fundraising for pro-choice Democratic

women candidates. A primary target of their fundraising is women. The acronym stands for

“Early Money Is Like Yeast,” with the assumption that early money will help raise more dough

(money). John Green et al. found in a study prior to the work of Crespin and Dietz that half of

all women donors who engaged in bundling did so through EMILY’s List.

86 See, Michael H. Crespin and Janna L Deitz, “If You Can’t Join ‘Em, Beat ‘Em: The Gender

Gap in Individual Donations to Congressional Candidates,” Political Research Quarterly 63, no.

3 (September 2010): 581–593, http://prq.sagepub.com/cgi/rapidpdf/1065912909333131v1.pdf.

See also John C. Green, Paul S. Herrnson, Lynda Powell, and Clyde Wilcox, “Women Big

Donors Mobilized in Congressional Elections,” June 8, 1999, accessed May 13, 2010, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/herrnson/women.html; Nancy McGlen, Karen O’Connor, Laura van Assendelft, and Wendy Gunther-Canada, Women, Politics, and American Society, 5th ed.

(New York: Longman, 2011), 64; Susan J. Carroll and Kira Sanbonmatsu, More women can run

: Gender and pathways to the state legislatures. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).

87 Michael H. Crespin and Janna L Deitz, “If You Can’t Join ‘Em, Beat ‘Em: The Gender Gap in

Individual Donations to Congressional Candidates,” Political Research Quarterly 63, no. 3

(September 2010): 581–593, http://prq.sagepub.com/cgi/rapidpdf/1065912909333131v1.pdf

88 Jamie Pamela Pimlott, “Pulling in the Dough: The Contribution Patterns of Donors to

EMILY’s List” (paper, American Political Science Association annual meeting, Philadelphia,

PA, August 31–September 3, 2006), http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/1/2/pages152126/p15212

6-1.php.

89 Neither the CCES nor ANES asked comparable questions on the importance of abortion in

2012.

90 Brian F. Schaffner, “Campaigning on Women’s Issues in U.S. Senate Elections,” American

Journal of Political Science 49, no. 4 (October 2005): 803–17; see also

Arlie Russell Hochschild, “There’s No Place Like Work,” New York Times, April 20, 1997, accessed November 9, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/20/magazine/there-s-no-place-

like-work.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm. A Gallup poll in September 2009 found that 42

percent of women, as compared to 32 percent of men, thought Congress should vote for the

healthcare reform bill “this fall” [2009]. See Lydia Saad, “Americans Still Sharply Divided on

Healthcare Reform,” Gallup, September 8, 2009, accessed October 3, 2011,

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122822/americans-sharply-divided-healthcare-reform.aspx.

91 Robert Y. Shapiro and Harpreet Mahajan, “Gender Differences in Policy Preferences: A

Summary of Trends From the 1960s to the 1980s,” The Public Opinion Quarterly 50, no. 1

(Spring 1986): 42–61.

92 Susan J. Carroll, “Voting Choices: The Politics of the Gender Gap,” in Gender and Elections:

Shaping the Future of American Politics, ed. Susan J. Carroll and Richard L. Fox (New York:

Cambridge University Press, 2010), 134.

93 We asked about Libya in the 2012 survey but find no significant differences by gender on this

item.

94 Vote With Your Purse: Harnessing the Power of Women’s Political Giving for the 2008

Election and Beyond, (Washington, D.C.: Women’s Campaign Forum Foundation, 2007), 10,

accessed July 11, 2012, http://www.wcffoundation.org/assets/documents/wcff-vote-with-your- purse-2007.pdf.

95 Jeanne Cummings, “Women Donors Triple Contributions,” Politico, September 23, 2008, accessed August 6, 2011, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13767.html . Cummings makes this point by citing Ilana Goldman, president of Women’s Campaign Forum.

96 David A. Dulio, Donald L. Goff, and James A. Thurber, “Untangled Web: Internet Use during

the 1998 Election,” Political Science and Politics 32, no. 1 (March 1999): 53–59, 54; Gary W.

Selnow, Electronic Whistle-Stops: The Impact of the Internet on American Politics (Westport:

Praeger, 1998); Bruce Bimber and Richard Davis, Campaigning Online: The Internet and U.S.

Elections (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003),

97 The data compared here are from the Pew Internet and American Life Survey for 2008. Due to differences in question wording, an exact comparison between the Pew survey and our survey is not possible. But in the Pew survey when we combine the Internet use at work and Internet use at home items for each respondent we continue to find much more internet activity for men and women in our survey. In both surveys and on all measures the differences between men and women are insignificant.