1. To What Extent is Political
Campaign Solicitation
Gendered in the United
States?
University of London
Birkbeck College
MSc Gender, Sexuality & Society
Andrea Dubé
Submitted on 28 September 2012

2. 2
I certify that the work submitted herewith is my own and that I have duly
acknowledged any quotation from the published or unpublished work of other
persons.
28 September 2012

3. Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................... 4
Introduction............................................................................................... 5
Literature Review...................................................................................... 8
Addressing the Gap ............................................................................... 21
What Fundraisers Say............................................................................ 27
Conclusion .............................................................................................. 45
Works Cited............................................................................................. 49

4. 4
Abstract
The economic status of women in the United States has risen steadily for
the last several decades. At the same time, the financial contributions they make
to federal elections has remained stagnant; women have given less than one-
third of all campaign donations for the last twenty years. Why this disparity exists
has not been answered in the existing literature. This is a striking omission given
that campaign contributions play a major role in American society and have a
foundational influence on the political landscape. Providing a definitive answer to
this puzzle is beyond the scope of this paper, but its purpose is to make a
contribution to our understanding of this problem through an analysis of gender
variations in campaign finance that focuses on the methods, techniques and
attitudes of fundraisers on U.S. political campaigns. Using semi-structured
interviews with a sample of professional campaign fundraisers, this research
analyzes how political fundraisers view women as potential campaign
contributors, and to what extent they are informed by and perpetuate gendered
assumptions and stereotypes about women and monetary participation in the
political process.

5. 5
Introduction
"There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I
can't remember the second." -Mark Hanna (Bartlett 2009)
The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of gender in the
solicitation of campaign finance from individual women donors in federal
elections in the United States (U.S.). Through interviews with professional
political fundraisers, this paper explores to what extent fundraisers use gendered
approaches when soliciting political funds from women. The objectives of this
research are 1) to address a gap in the campaign finance literature, which
explains little about fundraising from women; 2) to explore the extent of gender
discrimination in the solicitation process; 3) to contribute to our wider
understanding of how gendered assumptions define the political process in
American electoral politics.
Women have voted in greater numbers than men in every U.S.
presidential election since 1980 (Center for American Women and Politics
[CAWP] 2011). However, women’s participation in the political process has
faltered when it comes to writing cheques in support of political campaigns at the
same levels as men. Since 1990 – when campaign finance records became
publicly available for the first time in the U.S. – women have consistently given,
on average, between 25% and 30% of all federal campaign contributions to
political candidates, political action committees (PACs), and parties (WCF
Foundation 2009; Beckel 2011). This is puzzling because women’s share of the
economy in the U.S. has grown dramatically: they now own half of the U.S.’s
wealth, which is estimated to be $11 trillion by 2020 (Dychtawld 2010, p.5), their
spending power continues to grow, and the gender disparity in education
continues to narrow. Between 1991 and 2001 the number of women earning a
salary of at least $100,000 tripled, and between 1997 and 2010 the percentage of
women-owned businesses jumped from 26% to 40% (Dychtwald 2010, p.5).

6. 6
Additionally, women now surpass men in both undergraduate and graduate
programs (The Economist 2009). Yet despite their increasing presence in
boardrooms and classrooms, women are giving at roughly the same levels in
2012 as they did in 1992. How do we explain this stagnant behavior in political
donations when women’s economic roles in other area of life are so dynamic?
The existing literature has established that women give fewer political
contributions than their male counterparts, and scholars have theorized that
childhood socialization, socio-economic factors, and the influence of non-political
institutions have been the main cause (Anderson 1975; Brady et al. 1995; Clark
and Clark 1986; Conway 2001; Inglehard and Norris 2000; Verba et al. 1997).
However, the circumstances of donors are only one part of the equation and the
proposal of this paper is that the literature has failed to examine ways in which
professional fundraisers may contribute to the gender gap in campaign
donations. This paper argues that the failure to study this aspect of campaign
fundraising has accentuated a gap in our understanding of how gender and
gender prejudices affect the political process. Rather than focusing on the
general socio-economic circumstances of women for explaining their financial
contributions, this paper turns its focus to political fundraisers. This paper’s
findings suggest the importance of examining the extent that the institution of
electoral politics may be gendered and how this narrative perpetuates identity
politics.
As this paper will demonstrate, the existing literature and research on
gender and campaign finance is scant. There are few wide scale surveys that
focus on women donors and their similarities and differences in demographics,
their motives for giving, or attitudes towards political finance. Most importantly,
there are no existing systematic studies that address the possible link between
women’s giving patterns and the solicitation methods used by political players.
When researchers do address gender and political donations, they usually only
do so as part of more general discussions about political participation. Thus, the

7. 7
lack of political contributions by women has been largely attributed to differences
in early gender socialization, differences in men and women’s political
participation, and differences in their attitudes towards the political process
(Burns et al. 2001). Therefore, a large piece of the puzzle remains missing and
unexamined: the role of the political campaign in the creation and persistence of
the gender gap.
In order to fully understand why women are not giving to political
campaigns, it is crucial to understand the fundraising process: namely, how and
why campaigns target potential donors, and whether they view and solicit funds
differently from men and women. Because they are an increasingly powerful
force within U.S. politics, the views of professional campaign fundraisers can
provide important clues to our central questions surrounding gender and finance.
With their unlimited access to high-level elected officials, influence on campaign
strategies, and possession of a donor contact list teeming with wealth, political
fundraisers play an exceptionally influential part in political and social affairs.
Accordingly, this paper presents findings from interviews with a set of political
fundraisers and carefully analyzes their attitudes towards male and female
donors.
This paper is made up of three sections. The first section conducts a
literature review to assess the major gaps in existing studies on gender, politics,
and campaign finance. The second section explains why an examination of the
role of fundraisers in the solicitation of women is crucial to our understanding of
the gendered narrative in campaign finance, and why the implications could be
important to the political landscape. The third section presents this paper’s
original qualitative research with campaign fundraisers and analyzes their
responses. It then discusses these findings and their implications in relation to
some of the major contributors to gender theory. This paper concludes that there
is a process of internalized gender discrimination in the political solicitation
process that may contribute to the large gender gap in political contributions, with

8. 8
implications for both U.S. political campaign finance and our wider understanding
of women’s political engagement.

9. 9
Literature Review
This section provides a critical review of the existing theoretical literature
and the empirical methods that dominate the academic research relevant to this
study. This section first presents the problem posed in the empirical data
regarding the gender disparity in political donations, highlighting the fact that
traditional explanations of women’s economic disadvantages are inadequate
given the clear transformation of the economic status of women. In the review of
the potential explanations for the gender gap in political donations, this section
then assesses the central themes in the existing literature – campaign finance
and political participation – demonstrating the lack of adequate attention in the
literature on this issue. Finally, this section critiques the dominant methods used
in the existing research.
The Unchanging Face of Female Financial Contributions
The best available body of work on the demographics of campaign
contributors is provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a non-profit
that is arguably at the forefront of all campaign finance data analysis.1
CRP’s
breakdown of campaign records from 1990 until 2010 reveals that women
consistently make up only 25-30% of all individuals’ contributions of $200 or more
to federal candidates and PACs. Men make the remaining 70-75% of
contributions (Beckel 2011). During the 2010 election cycle, women gave at
least $386 million, and men gave at least $1.07 billion (Beckel 2011).2
Likewise,
other scholars have consistently found a disparity between men and women
1
The Center for Responsive Politics is “regularly cited by news organizations such as the New York Times,
Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and National Public Radio. The Center's experts
routinely appear on national news programs and in the pages of major publications providing analysis on
political influence issues” (CRP 2012).
2
The Federal Election Committee only requires identifying information for those donors who give contributions
of at least $200, so these giving totals do not reflect the contributions given by donors who contributed in
smaller amounts. There is no way of knowing the gender of smaller donors (Emily, personal interview, 20
August 2012).

10. 10
when it comes to political giving, and the gap is much bigger than other forms of
political participation (Burns et al. 2001).
A common reaction to this discrepancy in giving levels is to assume it is a
result of women’s lack of socio-economic resources (e.g. Day and Hadley 2004,
p.5). The wage gap in the U.S. is real, tangible, and indisputable. However, in
recent decades, this gap has considerably narrowed, and women’s education,
income and occupational status have steadily increased. While the political
spending of women has remained stagnant, their spending power has increased
dramatically (U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee 2010). Women make
85% of consumer buying decisions and run 40% of all companies in the United
States (Johnson and Learned 2005, p.10). These purchases, both business and
consumer, translate to roughly $5 trillion a year (Dychtwald 2010, p.5).
Additionally, women head 40% of households and own half the nation’s wealth,
which is estimated to be $11 trillion by 2020 (Dychtwald 2010, p.5). Women
began to outnumber men as college undergraduates in 1980, and since 2011
have outnumbered them in graduate programs as well (CBS 2012). This
translates to 2.6 million more women than men currently studying at an American
university (The Economist 2009). Although they still lag behind in many
traditionally “masculine” occupational fields like engineering, women now make
up half of the workforce in the U.S. (The Economist 2009). While women
represent only 3.8% of Fortune 500 chief executive officers (Catalyst 2012),
businesses started by women are appearing at a rate that is twice as fast as
those owned by men (The Economist 2009).
Even though women have more disposable income than ever before, they
are simply not giving large of amounts in monetary donations to political
campaigns. The voting behaviour of women indicates that they are indeed deeply
invested in the political process: women have voted in greater numbers than
men in every single presidential election since 1980 (CAWP 2011). Women own

11. 11
half the nation’s wealth, but own only, at best, one third of political donations to
campaigns, in which – as the voting record shows – they clearly have a sense of
vested interest. So, the question remains: why?
The Literature on Campaign Finance
A great deal has been written about women and campaign finance (Baker
2006; Burell 1985, 1990, 2005; Crespin and Deitz 2010; Fox 1997; Francia 2001;
Green 2004; Green et al. 1999; Stone, Rice, and Angel 1991; Uhlaner and
Schlozman 1986; Werner 1997; Werner and Mayer 2007; Wilcox et al. 1993).
This literature has made some important contributions to our understanding of
gender dynamics in campaign financing. During the 1970s it was widely believed
that women candidates were disadvantaged when it came to political fundraising
(Burell 2005, p.27). Subsequent studies have demonstrated time and time again
the contrary: when women run for federal office, they fundraise at the same
levels as their male counterparts (Burell 1994, 2005; Uhlaner and Schlozman
1986). Much has been written on the fundraising activities of female candidates
and their fundraising abilities, most notably by Barbara Burell (1985, 1990, 2005).
Additionally, some have studied the impact of female donor networks on women
candidates (Francia 2001), as well as their slight advantage of raising money
from individual donors (Deitz and Crespin 2010).
Surprisingly, however, little attention has been given in this literature to the
gender gap in campaign contributions. This appears to be driven, in part, by the
fact that the literature on campaign finance in general has usually focused on the
total money raised by candidates, rather than enquiring into the demographic
break-down of donors – let alone the gender disparities contained within the data.
There is a significant body of literature that focuses on the behaviour,
organization, and fundraising strategies of PACs (e.g. Biersack et al. 1994;
Gopoian et al. 1984; Masters and Baysinger 1985; Sabato 1984; Sorauf and
Beck 1988; Wright 1985); and there is another large sector of literature focused

12. 12
on political parties and their fundraising activities (e.g. Cotter, Gibson, Bibby, and
Huckshorn 1989; Herrnson 1988, 1989; Eismeier and Pollock 1986a, 1986b).
However, as Francia et al. (2003) have identified, while there is this “voluminous”
literature (2003, p.12) dedicated to the fundraising characteristics of political
parties and PACs, there is a striking relative dearth of “systematic research on
the motivations and strategies of individual congressional donors” (2003, p.12).3
In particular, the major work of Francia, Green, Herrnson, Powell, and
Wilcox (2003), The Financiers of Congressional Elections: Investors, Ideologues,
and Intimates, identifies and seeks to address this major gap in the campaign
finance literature, highlighting the need for profiling the demographics of
individual donors and their motivations for giving. Francia et al. (2003) examines
several issues that have been missing in past scholarly work: who contributes to
congressional campaigns, what motivates them to contribute, and how
campaigns persuade them to give. They confirm that donors fit the prevalent
stereotype: they are “overwhelmingly wealthy, white, middle-aged professionals
and businessmen who are integrated into social and political networks” (2003,
p.16). Additionally, the donor profile has remained virtually the same since the
data begins in the 1970s, even though there have been drastic changes in
society in the following decades, including increases in female elected officials
(2003, p.158). Yet, in this study, and in another major work on campaign finance
– Brown, Powell, and Wilcox’s (1995) Serious Money – women are identified only
by their differences to men. The authors confirm that women do not give at the
same levels as men, but then do not then seek to examine why, as if the
discrepancy is self-explanatory. In short, these studies view campaign finance
through a masculine lens: the norm is defined by the giving habits of men, and
women are only acknowledged by their inability to live up to the norm.
3
It should be recognized that, in response to the longstanding neglect of research on individual contributors,
some important works have emerged (Francia et al. 2003; Brown 1995). However, there is almost no enquiry in
this literature into the question of the gender gap in political donations.

13. 13
Two exceptions in the literature on campaign finance are by Day and
Hadley (2004) and Green et al. (1999). Both are rare examples of works that
closely examine a subset of specific women donors. In Women’s PACs:
Abortions and Elections (2004), Day and Hadley present the first systematic
analysis specifically examining contributors to women’s PACs. Expanding on the
authors’ earlier work (Day and Hadley 2001; Day et al. 2001) this book addresses
a significant gap in knowledge about the contributors to influential women-
focused PACs of whom 90% are women (Day and Hadley 2004, p.90). These
women’s groups are widely credited with increasing the number of female elected
officials, especially in the early 1990s (Day and Hadley 2005, p.90). After
surveying the contributors to the various committees, the authors collected and
analyzed the demographic and ideological similarities and differences between
the respondents. They then compared their findings to public data on other
female political contributors, and concluded that women do indeed have the
proven potential to be significant political donors, whilst also identifying that
women, as a whole, are more liberal in political ideology than men. However, the
utility of this research for the subject of this paper is limited by the fact that these
women’s PACs are a special case – with these PACs focusing entirely on the
single issue of abortion. We are still left with little information to explain why
women give only one third of donations to federal elections in general. If
anything, given Day and Hadley’s identification of the potential of women as
donors, their research only magnifies the puzzle.
Similarly, Green, Herrnson, Powell, and Wilcox (1999) surveyed 1,100
contributors in an attempt to understand the participants’ gendered ideological
leanings. The authors found that women identified themselves as more liberal
than men, and were more likely to make donations for ideological reasons
compared to men, who were more likely to make a donation for material
incentives (Green et al. 1999). However, while this survey is valuable in

14. 14
identifying gendered differences between male and female donors, it is unable to
offer any potential reasons for these findings.
The Literature on Political Participation
Most academics consider the act of contributing to a political campaign to
be a form of political participation (Burns et al. 2001). Therefore, it is important to
understand the theoretical underpinnings of political engagement and to critically
examine the implications for understanding the gender disparity in campaign
donations. Researchers have long been interested in the gap between men and
women’s levels of political participation and engagement (Anderson 1975; Brady
et al. 1995; Bourque and Grossholtz 1974; Clark and Clark 1986; Conway 2001;
Inglehard and Norris 2000; Lawless and Fox 2010; Leighley 1995; Verba 1997;
Verba and Nie 1987; Verba et al. 1995; Welch 1977). Explanations for this
persistent gender disparity have ranged from early socialization in childhood to
women’s disproportionate lack of socio-economic resources (Baxter and Lansing
1983; Dawson et al. 1977; Greenstein 1965; Hess and Torney 1967; Schlozman
et al. 1994; O’Connor and Yanus 2009; Welch 1977). Many explanations for
women’s participation have been absorbed as universal truths, and the resulting
discourse has long constructed women as politically passive, wholly uninterested
and too tied to their domestic responsibilities to make the time to vote. However,
several researchers (Welch 1977, p. 711; Burns et al., 2001) note that while the
literature provides many theories, it is based on little empirical evidence. Burns
et al. (2001, p.8) argue that some of the traditional explanations are “just plain
wrong” and no singular factor can be used to understand gender differences in
participation. While early socialization and socio-economic reasons are
undoubtedly major factors for women’s lower levels of participation, an uncritical
acceptance of these factors as the key cause risks ignoring the complex gender
nuances involved.
Leighley (2012) also argues that over reliance on the classic “standard

15. 15
socio-economic model” (SES) (Verba et al. 1997) – an empirical mainstay in
most participation scholarship – has produced research that focuses too heavily
on socio-economic background and not enough on mobilization efforts when
considering levels of political activity. This SES model theorizes that political
participation can be predicted by a person’s access to resources (financial, time,
and skills) as well as their civic orientations. Leighley argues that the SES model
muddles the relationship between attitudes and behavior. Accordingly, the model
presumes that participation is the consequence of attitudes, and not vice versa,
and the effect is to “overestimate” the impact of an individual’s attitude on their
behavior (2012, p.186). Leighley argues that mobilization, or the “external
motivation” is a crucial and under-researched component of an individual’s civic
orientation and participation. She points out the numerous studies that
demonstrate that voter turnout is higher in election precincts with higher levels of
campaign spending and activity (2012, p.189). With particular significance for
this study, this suggests the importance of mobilization efforts for political
participation outcomes.
Similarly, Verba, Burns, and Schlozman (1997) conclude “women’s
disadvantages with respect to such critical political resources as education,
income and civic skills does not fully explain the relatively small gender gap in
activity” (1997, p.1057). After concluding that a lack of education and income are
only part of the explanation for political inactivity, Verba et al. (1997) explored the
differences between women who “can’t participate” and those who may lack the
“taste for politics” (1997, p.1070). Accordingly, Verba et al. tested the potential
gender differences in “political interest, information, and efficacy” (1997, p.1052).
They concluded that men are more politically engaged and they are more likely
than women to be knowledgeable and interested in politics (See also O’Connor
and Yanus 2009). Interestingly, this gap in knowledge was found to be specific
only to politics. For example, the researchers found no knowledge gap with
regards to other subjects, such as AIDS, healthcare, or on vocabulary tests

16. 16
(1997, p.1063). They proposed that further research is needed to explore
whether this lesser political engagement is by personal choice or is a
”constructed preference” that is a consequence of a world traditionally dominated
by men (1997, p.1053).
To that end, in The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender, Equality, and
Political Participation (2001), Burns, Schlozman, and Verba turned their attention
to the social origins of the disparity between men and women in civic political
participation. Improving on several past models for participation, including the
well-known SES model (Verba et al. 1997) and the Civic Voluntarism Model
(Brady et al. 1995), the authors offered a comprehensive empirical framework
that engages with a large and rich data set. They focused on the root influence
of what they define as “non-political institutions” – the home, school, workplaces,
voluntary associations and religious institutions – and how these institutions work
as multiple factors that jointly affect political participation. The study confirmed
that while women are more likely than men to vote, they continue to fall behind
when it comes to other types of participation, such as volunteering on political
campaigns. The disparity is especially apparent when it comes to campaign
contributions and the authors note that, “gender differences in participation seem
to have less to do with whether an activity is conventional or unconventional,
formal or informal, electoral or direct than with whether the form of participatory
capital is dollars or hours” (2001, p.68). Women give less frequently and smaller
contributions when compared with men, yet the authors are unable to offer an
explanation and suggest “men and women have somewhat different orientations
to money –with potential implications for making contributions. These issues
deserve further study” (2001, p.265). They conclude that one of the factors that
plays the biggest role when it comes to gender differences in political
participation is what they call “recruitment,” meaning the manner in which one is
asked to engage.

17. 17
One of Burns et al.’s most surprising findings is that a lack of “leisure time”
had little impact on women’s political participation (2001, p.359). Debunking old
theories, they found that, for a busy stay-at-home mother or a woman working
full-time, a lack of free time did not hinder their capacity for civic engagement.
Although Burns et al. were unable to explain the reasons for this, they also found
that when women are more visible in public office as elected officials, the overall
participation of women increases. While they suggest that an increased gender
balance among the political elite would have positive consequences on women’s
political engagement (2001, p.342), they largely omit consideration of the impact
of the political institutions on participation levels. The Private Roots of Public
Action is a crucial work on the relationship between gender and political
participation, but it also reflects a major gap in the existing literature on women’s
political participation: there is no comprehensive examination of the roles that
political institutions (namely, parties, candidates, and elites) play in mobilizing
women into political activity. As Brown et al. (1995) identify in Serious Money,
“surprisingly little research has been done on the methods of soliciting individual
contributors ... especially on the interrelated decisions of contributors and
campaigns” (Brown et al. 1995, p.7).
Dominant Methods in the Literature
It is important to highlight the methods typically used in this field of study.
While the participation literature has progressed, from using an empirical model
that ignored women as a variable (Brady et al. 1995) to studies that focus
exclusively on women (Burns et al. 2001), the majority of scholarship continues
to be based on large-scale surveys that are limited in their ability to provide
context specific gender analysis (e.g. Day and Hadley 2004; Green et al. 1999).
While surveys may be useful in the identification of gender trends in political data,
these studies do not then examine the causes of these trends. We know the
names and addresses of the women who give, we may know their professions

18. 18
and incomes, but we do not know why they do or do not give money or what
stops them from giving more. Critically, these empirical studies ignore the impact
that political institutions may or may not have on these decisions.
One under-examined source of influence on political donations is the role of
political elites. For decades American political campaigns have undergone a
series of “professionalizations,” and this has led to a thriving consultant industry
that is involved in virtually every aspect of contemporary political campaigns
(Farrell et al. 2001; Herrnson and Abbe 2000; Parry 2005; Thurber 1998; Thurber
and Nelson 2000). These professionals fill the ranks of campaign managers,
pollsters, field staff, fundraisers, yet, as some observers identify, “relatively little is
known about the world of political consultants” (Thurber 1998, p.2). Despite the
influence and visibility of these campaign professionals, the impact of political
elites has remained largely unexplored by academic researchers. Medvic (2001)
notes that for years political theory has been marked by a “lack of theoretical
perspective on consultant activity and a lack of quantitative analysis of their
influence” (2001 p.xi; see also Medvic 1998). As West (1989) observes, “the
preoccupation with American voters has distracted researchers from candidates
and other political elites. Indeed, campaigners are crucial in elections. They set
the choices available to voters. They influence the rate of political change. They
establish the perimeters of the electoral arena” (West 1989 p.17). To move
beyond the dominant method of large-scale surveys and its inherent
shortcomings, one of the avenues requiring exploration is that of the role and
influence of campaign professionals.
A Note on the Gender Binary in the Literature
Campaign finance records and academic research focusing on campaign
finance generally utilize a binary classification of gender. Donors are categorized
as either “male” or “female,” with no acknowledgment of non-gender conforming
individuals. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) provides the most accurate

19. 19
source of campaign finance data on elections, and most academics and election
analysts rely heavily on this data. The Federal Election Commission does not list
or require a gender category on any individual contribution records.4
Some, but
not all, may state a gendered title before each name (“Mrs.,” “Miss, “Mr.,” etc.),
but there is no way of knowing whether this title is provided by the donor or by
the campaign. Additionally, in many cases a campaign’s finance record-keeping
software automatically generates gendered titles based on a contributor’s name
(Ashley, personal interview, 20 August 2012). For example, a donor with a
typically “male” name, such as “Tom” will be automatically classified as a “male”
by the program. These automatically generated gender assignments are
subsequently submitted to the FEC for disclosure purposes. Additionally,
analysts of FEC records, including the Center for Responsive Politics, generally
assign gender to contributors based on the presumed gender provided by a
donor’s name, as well as titles such as “Mrs.” and “Mr.” For this reason, the
Center for Responsive Politics gives the following disclaimer: “Discerning
whether a contribution comes from a man or a woman based on federal
campaign finance filings is an inexact science” (Beckel 2011). It is worth nothing
that the accepted use of a gender binary classification system has the effect of
classifying women as a monolithic bloc, denying their agency, and also rendering
non-gender conforming people as invisible.
The Gaps in the Literature
This literature review has established certain inadequacies in the available
literature. While there is a sector of the campaign finance literature that
examines the demographic dynamics of donors to political campaigns, it fails to
enquire into the reasons for the gender disparity in campaign donations.
Meanwhile, the literature on campaign finance that does deal with gender issues
typically examines only the dynamics of women candidates and the total
4
For federal records purposes individual contributors are not asked to self identify their preferred gender identity, nor their race,
ethnicity, or income level.

20. 20
donations received, not the dynamics and demographics of donors. Meanwhile,
an examination of the political participation literature reveals inadequacies in the
existing socio-economic theories for lesser levels of female participation in
politics, leaving more questions than answers as to why female participation in
politics is so different, especially in campaign finance. Most of all, this literature
review indicates the potential importance of mobilization methods, and the role of
political elites, for explaining outcomes in terms of political participation.
However, no studies have attempted to examine mobilization methods as a way
of better understanding the gender disparity in political donations.
For the subject of this paper, this begs a question: do political elites and
their efforts to solicit the mobilization of women in the political process have an
important role to play in explaining the gender disparity in political donations?

21. 21
Addressing the Gap: Why We Should Examine the
Role of Campaign Fundraisers
The gaps in the literature identified in the previous section are too large to
be addressed in a single paper such as this. However, and as is made clear in
the previous section, new measures need to be devised that enable at least an
exploration of the mechanisms by which women are mobilized to give money for
political campaigns, as this is an area that is as of yet unexamined. The proposal
of this paper is that one method that has the potential to be particularly
productive is the examination of one particular sector of the political elite:
campaign fundraisers.
Fundraising is an indispensable component of modern elections in the U.S.
As political campaigns have become increasingly expensive, candidates have
become increasingly dependent on the assistance provided by professional
fundraisers. Fundraisers play a vital role in American elections, and they
subsequently occupy a powerful place within the political community. Their
indisputable status as Washington insiders also position them as compelling
sources of information for research purposes. Their proximity to powerful
politicians, their sweeping access to political elites, and their active role in
shaping every aspect of a political campaign gives them an exceptional view into
the inner workings of the political machine. In a world where handshakes come
with cheques, fundraisers can offer an invaluable glimpse into the back rooms of
U.S. politics.5
Money, as famously described by a politician in the 1960s, is “the mother’s
milk of politics” (Time 1968). Campaign contributions are the chief lifeline for U.S.
5
It should be noted that Brown et al. (1995) in Serious Money are an exception in the literature because they do take an
interest in fundraisers, interviewing a dozen fundraisers in their research. But the focus of their enquiry is into already active
and prominent donors – namely the white, middle-aged men that dominate political financial giving. They do not examine the
role of fundraisers in soliciting funds specifically from women.

22. 22
elected officials: they need it to win office and they need it to keep office. The
fundraising campaign is inherent to the day-to-day work of all elected officials in
the U.S. This is due to the fact that running for office in the United States is
exceptionally expensive. To illustrate: the total amount of money spent in all
federal elections during 2010 was over $5.2 billion, an amount that is larger than
the annual GDP of 57 individual countries (CRP 2012). In 2008, Barack Obama
spent $745 million dollars during his successful bid for the White House, and the
2012 presidential election is expected to be the most expensive race in the U.S.’s
history with a projected total of $6 billion spent (CRP 2012). The average cost of
a winning Senate race in 2010 was $9.7 million, while the average cost of a
losing race was $6.5 million (CRP 2012). Indeed, to even have a chance of
winning a seat in the House of Representatives, a potential candidate must raise
at least half a million dollars to be considered a viable choice (Clawson 1998,
p.2).
Under the pressure of these demands, more and more candidates have
been forced to look to professional fundraisers to help raise money for their
campaigns. Consequently, “an entire industry sprouts from candidates' voracious
need for campaign cash,” writes election expert Audie Cornish (NPR 2012a).
The professionals in this industry are well educated in the strategies of financial
solicitation, including how and who to target for funds (Cho and Gimpel 2007).
Because a finance director plays one of the most important roles on a campaign,
he or she is usually one of the first staff members that a candidate hires when
mobilizing for a political race (Faucheux 2003). Typically the finance director
spends hours with the candidate each day, assisting with “dialing for dollars,” or
the process of phoning potential donors and asking for contributions (Kate,
personal interview, 20 August 2012). Senator Durbin, a Democratic senator,
explains, “We sit at these desks with stacks of names in front of us, and short
bios and histories of giving...and ask them to give, and this goes on and on and
on” (NPR 2012b).

23. 23
The finance director is usually tasked with compiling the list of these
potential donors, along with any other biographical information that may be
helpful to the candidate when asking for money. “I would go as far to find out a
donor’s dog’s name if it will help get a cheque out of him,” said one participant in
this study (Ashley, personal interview, 20 August 2012). Additionally, the finance
director drafts and implements the overall campaign fundraising strategy,
including all forms of solicitation, which often takes the form of phone, event, and
mail solicitation. This is often a complicated process:
Donors constitute one side of the fundraising equation; candidates
constitute another.... Many of these potential donors can imagine spending
their money in more enjoyable ways, and thus the task facing candidates,
and their fundraising teams, is not an easy one. Although there exists a
ready pool of habitual donors, and another group that gives in some
elections, these donors do not usually press themselves upon the
candidate to offer contributions. As a result, candidates must wage a
campaign to raise money that is just as complicated as the campaigns they
wage to win votes. The campaign for resources, like the campaign for
votes, involves strategic targeting, message development, personal and
impersonal communications, and mobilizing the support of diverse groups
of supporters (Francia et al. 2003, p.16).
As races become more and more expensive, the roles of fundraisers are
only becoming more crucial to the political process, and essential to the viability
of a candidate. Indeed, Herrnson and Faucheux (2000, p.1) found that the
candidates who hired professional fundraisers raised an estimated $475,882
more than those who did not.
A fundraiser’s job does not end when the race is over. When a politician
wins an election on Election Day, the next fundraising cycle for the next election
starts the very next day. Consequently, an incumbent’s need to fundraise year

24. 24
round is extremely time consuming. Herrnson and Faucheux (2000 p.1) found
that almost half of all U.S. House candidates devoted at least a quarter of their
time to fundraising, and almost a quarter of candidates reported spending at least
half their time fundraising. For the majority of congressional incumbents, days
are broken up by votes in the chambers and hours dedicated to fundraising
solicitation (Lawrence, personal interview, 20 August 2012.) “Most of our
lawmakers are moonlighting as telemarketers,” journalist Alex Blumberg (NPR
2012b) wryly notes. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin says, “I think most Americans
would be shocked — not surprised, but shocked — if they knew how much time a
United States senator spends raising money, and how much time we spend
talking about raising money, and thinking about raising money, and planning to
raise money” (NPR 2012b). He adds that raising money is largely a “second job”
for most elected officials (NPR 2012b).
Candidates and their fundraisers must persuade hundreds, if not
thousands, of individuals to contribute to their campaigns. Americans who give
to political campaigns represent an elite sector. For example: only 0.26 percent
of the population in the United States gave $200 or more to a federal candidate in
2008 (CRP 2012). These donors do not reflect the diverse demographics of the
nation’s voting population. They are, as Brown et al. describe, “primarily wealthy,
white, male, business executives who are middle-aged or older” (Brown et al.
1995, p.801). This is important to note, Brown et al. (1995, p.789) argue,
because, “When members of Congress wander among the tables at fundraising
events, they do not hear the voices of average Americans. Significant donors do
not live paycheck to paycheck, or worry about where they will get the money for
car repairs or for their children’s educations.” Because of the large amounts of
time that they must dedicate to fundraising, candidates spend a good deal of time
communicating with potential donors, and as we have seen above, as much as
half of their time is spent wooing this elite and largely homogenous group of
contributors.

25. 25
Academics cannot conclusively say to what extent donors have a
substantive influence on politicians, and the empirical evidence remains
inconsistent (Bronars and Lott 1997; Peoples 2012; Potters and Sloof 1996;
Statmann 1991). U.S. Congressman Barney Frank says that despite politicians’
claims to the contrary, political contributions do have some effect on their
behaviour. "People say, 'Oh, it doesn't have any effect on me,'" he states, "Well
if that were the case, we'd be the only human beings in the history of the world
who on a regular basis took significant amounts of money from perfect strangers
and made sure that it had no effect on our behaviour” (NPR 2012c). Even if
money does not directly influence a vote, it certainly gives a donor special access
to an elected official, access that he or she may not have had without making a
contribution. “Fundraisers and campaign contributions don't buy votes, for the
most part,” Andrea Seabrook, election expert, says, “But they buy access — they
get contributors in the door to make their case in front of the lawmaker or his
staff. And that can make all the difference” (NPR 2012a). A fundraiser who
participated in the paper’s research also said that, “If one of my top donors wants
to talk to my boss [a Senator], you can bet that it will happen, and it will happen
immediately. Would that donor otherwise have a direct line to a sitting U.S.
Senator? No way” (Kate, personal interview, 20 August 2012). If this is the case,
if financial contributions play a crucial role in obtaining intimate access to an
elected official, and if women are only giving one third of campaign contributions,
this has powerful implications for the place of women in the policy-making
process in the U.S.
Fundraisers act as the emissary between donors and elected officials.
When a politician asks a potential donor for a campaign contribution, that
potential donor and his or her perceived capacity to give has most certainly been
vetted by the fundraiser (Ashley, personal interview, 20 August 2012). The
fundraiser provides the stacks of solicitation phone calls, the donors who attend
events are invited by the fundraiser, and in many cases, the fundraiser even

26. 26
scripts what the politician should say to the potential donors (Lawrence, personal
interview, 22 August 2012). This is significant because it means that the
fundraiser plays a critical role in determining whom a candidate should solicit for
funds, and therefore fundraisers play a critical role in determining who ultimately
makes political contributions. This, in turn, means that fundraisers have an active
role in positioning the specific interests of a small subset of people within the
consideration of the most powerful people in the country. In this light, the dearth
of scholarship on political fundraisers is especially puzzling. Fundraisers are well
positioned to have an extraordinary amount of influence on the solicitation of
political elites, and this influence could have major implications on the political
process. It is also clear from the above that fundraisers have the potential to play
an important role in shaping the place of women in the financial solicitation
process.

27. 27
What Fundraisers Say About Women and Campaign
Finance
Research Design
Because this study is an attempt to understand the process of fundraising
and how the process may be influenced by the gendered assumptions of the
political elite, a qualitative analysis of a sample of professional fundraisers was
used. The hope was that interviews with the individuals who are tasked with
soliciting political contributions from women would provide some insight on why
women do not give to political campaigns at the same levels as men. Their
responses were compelling in their content, and several surprising patterns
emerged. All of the participants had strong opinions on fundraising from women,
and the many similarities in their views were striking. All of the participants
seemed aware that they needed to apologize for their “generalizations” and
“stereotypes” about gender, yet it is apparent that their fundraising methods are
influenced by specific beliefs about the perceived differences between women
and men.
This original research is based on semi-structured interviews with nine
campaign staffers. All of the participants have had significant experience working
as professional fundraisers for both male and female candidates for the Senate
and the House of Representatives. Additionally, several have had experience
fundraising for presidential candidates, and the majority of them have experience
working on statewide campaigns. One participant is now working for a
fundraising firm in Washington, D.C., that focuses exclusively on fundraising for
Democratic candidates. The interviews were held over the telephone and lasted
approximately 30 minutes each. Some provided additional responses by email.
Additionally, a focus group was held via telephone with three participants. All of
the participants were informed that their interviews would be recorded and they
could request to stop at any point. They were also assured of their anonymity,

28. 28
which was important for their willingness to give fuller and more detailed
answers.
Findings
Women as Targets
The participants spoke about how campaigns often target women
specifically with “lady friendly” solicitation efforts, which may include one-time
events, or in many cases, the formation of groups of women donors who then
assist the campaign in fundraising from women. Lawrence (personal interview,
22 August 2012) says that while “obviously, there are not any events out there
that we would exclude women from,” he acknowledges that “yes, there is
definitely a concerted effort on the part of campaigns to do women-centric
events. For instance, we just got done with one where we brought in Madeline
Albright as a featured guest. So, yeah, definitely campaigns will target women
specifically rather than just assuming that they would be part of the national fold.”
He adds that “there is this kind of ‘this is a specialized class,’ I guess, in terms of
taking a look at potential fundraising targets.”
Events that target this “specialized class” tend to be loaded with perceived
symbols of femininity. Amanda (personal interview, 17 August 2012) says, “at
any events that were planned for women we had particular handbills and buttons
for women with specific ‘female friendly colors.’ Which of course were purple and
pink.” Ashley (personal interview, 20 August 2012) agrees, “Oh yes, pink and
lots of flowery font. And sometimes I’ve had to provide gifts as well. In one case,
it was a specially designed piece of jewelry that we gave to women once they
raised a certain level of money.” While both fundraisers were dismissive at the
mention of color-coded women’s events, they admitted that the use of “female
friendly” contraband was a common occurrence. Considering this issue further,
Ashley (personal interview, 20 August 2012) said, “Well, it’s what a lot of our
female hosts want. I’ve spent a lot of time drafting and re-working invitations for

29. 29
them because that’s important to them, and they tend to be more of the
traditional, rich, stay-at-home types, so it’s a big deal for them.” She added:
I think that most campaigns don’t take women seriously as donors. When
you want to raise a lot of money in the most efficient way
possible…campaigns usually look to their male donors. Women donors are
often used symbolically by the campaign. We reach out to them and ask
them to put on a fundraising event that we know won’t raise much money,
but it will bring women to our table and increase our visibility with them as a
constituency. I’ve seen a lot of campaigns that have a women specific
aspect of the campaign, like ‘Women for Smith’ or something along those
lines. And campaigns will recruit one or two really rock star women, usually
ones who have established themselves as major funders, and ask them to
chair the women’s group. It’s almost like passing the buck. Giving them
the women donors and the events to plan. Like ‘hey, great, you deal with
the women.’
Many political campaigns have similar women’s groups. An examination of
the websites of several U.S. Senators running for office revealed affiliated groups
called, for example, “Women for Brown Coalition” (Senator Scott Brown website
2012), “Women for Sherrod Brown” (Senator Sherrod Brown website 2012) and
“Women for Cardin” (Senator Cardin website 2012). The slogan for Senator
Scott Brown’s women’s group is, “Women for Brown: He’s For Us,” written in
pink, echoing the methods mentioned by the fundraisers above. While it is not
immediately clear whether all of these specific groups are intended for
fundraising activities, many of them are, including Senator Mary Landrieu’s
“Louisiana Leadership Network,” a group of 100 women who have been recruited
by the campaign to each raise $10,000 (Kate, personal interview, 19 August
2012). Likewise, Senator Reid of Nevada has “Women for Reid,” a group that
recently held a fundraising event called “Women for Reid Tea Event.” The

30. 30
event’s co-chair is quoted in the invitation saying, “All Nevadans, but especially
women in Nevada, need Harry Reid fighting for them in the U.S. Senate”
(Senator Reid website 2012).
The participants all spoke of similar topics that they emphasize when
fundraising from women. Lawrence (personal interview, August 22 2012) says, “I
do think that in some ways we will cater some solicitations, whether they are
emails or written solicitations, you know, for what the campaign perceives as
‘women’s issues.’” For him, women’s issues are, “pro-choice, work place
equality, and education – which I think gets fairly lumped in with women’s
issues.” Bethany (personal interview, 20 August 2012) listed, “education,
healthcare, women’s issues such as equal pay, women’s retirement, pro-choice.
Children’s issues such as public school funding, teen pregnancy, affordable
healthcare for families. Unions specific to teachers and healthcare
professionals.” Ashley (personal interview, 20 August 2012) gives a similar
answer, “we tend to highlight a lot of so-called ‘women’s issues’ when doing a
fundraiser that targets women. So abortion rights, maternity leave, equal pay,
healthcare.” While these issues do reflect numerous studies and polls that
highlight these issues – family, education, healthcare- as being the most
important issues to women voters, they also may have the effect (much like polls
do) of homogenizing all women into one monolithic bloc.
Business v. Personal
“I hate women funders,” Kate (personal interview, 20 August 2012) says.
She then sought to correct herself: “I should clarify that. I hate the production of
events”: luncheons with invitations, receptions with balloons, dinners with
celebrities. When asked what solicitation methods were most successful with
women, all the participants again mentioned events. Why don’t these fundraisers
like events? “It’s easier to go to a man if you want to cut through the bullshit, get
your cheque, and be done,” says Stephanie (personal interview, 17 August

31. 31
2012). A common refrain from the participants was the belief that the motives for
giving are different for men and women, with men treating a contribution more
like a business transaction, and women treating it more as a chance for social
interaction.
Ashley (personal interview, 20 August 2012) says, “Women like to be part
of the planning of fundraising events, and it always ends up being a long drawn
out process. Male donors just get it. They know how the system works. The
best of them ask for five minutes of your time, if that, and then they drop off a
cheque and go. Women need to be coddled a bit more.” Elizabeth (personal
interview, 19 August 2012) says that with women “you have to pull on their
heartstrings, and men, you need to…they’re more number, more results
oriented.” Emilie (personal interview, 15 August 2012) adds, “Women are more
likely to give for an event and I think men want to be part of a business deal, and
women want to put together an event, they want to be with their friends and do
the social thing. I haven’t met many women donors who just want to hand over a
cheque and have a lunch and be done. They want to be part of the process.”
A “business versus personal” dichotomy was mentioned multiple times by
the participants. Ashley (personal interview, 20 August 2012) says, “For men, it’s
almost like a business transaction, they want to support a candidate who they
know is a good bet. Who will win? For women it seems much more like a
personal investment in the person who is running. And I feel like women are
almost more partisan. It’s more about ideology.” Kate (personal interview, 20
August 2012) agrees that for men donations are more “business-like, versus
women in support of personal connection and passion.” Lawrence (personal
interview, 22 August 2012) adds:
I do think that women tend to have a larger personal investment in their
candidates. They tend to be more loyal to their candidates. Like when
something happens, there’s a bad vote, or scandal, I do sense that

32. 32
women tend to be…hold more of a grudge, I guess. But I think that’s
because when they decide to invest in a candidate they want to make
sure they are doing the right thing, that they are backing the right person.
There is a bit more of an attachment, because I think they think it through
a bit more. Not just purely from a business standpoint, but from a
personal standpoint. Like when I talk with women lobbyists about some
of my clients, there are some guy donors, who say, “yeah, I really like
your guy.” But when they lose, it’s like “Oh, tough break.” But with women
lobbyists, it’s like “Oh I love your guy, he’s so great,” and then when
there’s a loss or something, there’s almost a mourning period. So
because of that more personal investment, I think they’re more careful
when they give. I think they just care more about it. I don’t want to
romanticize it too much but I do think that, compared to the female
lobbyists, the guys are little bit more blasé about [the candidates]. I think
the women have higher expectations, I guess.
Bethany says (personal interview, 17 Aug, 2012):
In my experience, women tend to give monetary contributions to candidates
with whom they strongly feel both personally and ideologically connected.
They are more likely to give to candidates that they have heard speak and
specifically addresses issues important to women. Men tend to give to a
party rather than a candidate, to candidates that they believe will win rather
than to a candidate who is struggling, regardless of how they feel about that
candidate’s positions. Women show stronger loyalty to a candidate once
they have made their decision.
Time versus Money
Conventional U.S. political wisdom says that “men give their money, and
women give their time” (Ashley, personal interview, 20 August 2012). All of the

33. 33
participants said that their women donors were more likely to give both. Bethany
(personal interview, 17 August 2012) says, “Men enjoy feeling influential enough
that they can "make a few calls" and have several large cheques that they have
cultivated. Women are more willing to put in time on the smaller donations and
work in a group setting in doing so.” Ashley (personal interview, 15 August 2012)
agrees, “When we need someone to volunteer, I usually turn to women before
men.” Ally (personal interview, 24 August 2012) says:
From my experience, in general women are willing to give more time than
men. Where this intersects with fundraising is that I have found women to
be more inclined to take on fundraising tasks that require more of a time
commitment, for example, organizing tables for events and recruiting
friends. But I think women are willing to also write a cheque they can do
so. So in general, more women are willing to commit time to raise from
others than men, but I don't see a big difference in inclination to write a
cheque based on gender.
Finding Women Donors
Campaigns are typically stretched for time and in staff resources, therefore
fundraisers usually look to past donors with strong giving histories to solicit first
(Francia et al. 2001). Brown et al. (1995, p. 34) note, “In selecting which lists to
target, fundraisers being with the assumption that the untapped who have a
propensity to contribute will resemble in some demographic way those who have
revealed their propensity by actually contributing.” Could this be partly why the
female percentage share of total donations has changed little in the past two
decades? The fundraisers who participated on this project provided a useful
perspective on this issue when asked whether fundraising campaigns pay
insufficient attention to women and why. Ashley (personal interview, 20 August
2012) says:
Campaigns aren’t purposely ignoring women as potential donors, but when

34. 34
we don’t have a lot of time on our hands, they aren’t the first ones we turn
to when looking for new sources of money. I think a lot of it also has to do
with the time-frame. Campaigns are fast moving and fundraisers have
crucial goals and deadlines. We use lists of past donors and because
women aren’t always on these lists, they don’t always get asked. A lack of
time and a lack of staff lead to this omission.
Lawrence (personal interview, 22 August 2012) adds further insight to this:
I think it’s part recycling [the donor list]. I don’t think there’s enough really
good hard research going on. Campaigns have such limited time that its
hard to devote time to do that when you have stacks of calls on stacks of
calls of donors just sitting there. So it’s like ‘oh let’s just get that done’
[implying the lists of past donors], and it gets put on the back end. As
fundraisers, we get so focused on collecting business cards and that
becomes one of our primary outlets of finding new prospects. So we’re
not really able to look at potential donors, people with disposable income
who are politically inclined, if they’re not in the business room. So I think
fundraisers are missing out on a lot of women who could be politically
active, but they don’t really push in terms of an introduction.
This reveals another obstacle fundraisers face when raising money from
women: they often make their pitches in the boardroom. While women have
made great strides in cracking the corporate glass ceiling, they still make up only
3.8% of Fortune 500 CEOs (Catalyst 2012). Says Stephanie (personal email, 23
August 2012):
In my experience working for a sitting Senator, a lot of the contributors
were donating and advocating for their companies’ interests. There is a
max the PAC could donate and once that was made, the company would
throw a fundraiser with their executives and encourage them to be

35. 35
generous with their funds to influence the vote. Sucks, but true. These
companies and corporations were male dominated. I remember a
tobacco company in particular, and the Senator voted in favor of them,
therefore they threw a $35,000 fundraiser of all individual funds, given to
us by their executives – I think there was only one woman in the room.
Household Dynamics
Interestingly, the Center for Responsive Politics found that women “who
apparently don't earn an income (not including retirees)” have given $90.6 million
to federal candidates, committees and parties in the 2008 election cycle. This
includes women donors who have listed “homemaker,” “housewife,” “civic
activist,” “community volunteer,” “philanthropist,” or “mom” on the FEC reports
(Mayer 2008). The large number of non-working women with “surprisingly
lucrative” funds, however, has caused CRP to query the status of these non-
income women: “those who list homemaker and other similar terms often donate
along with their husbands, especially when the wage-earning spouse has maxed
out to the candidate and can legally give no more. This raises the question of
whether the contribution was the woman's decision or just a way for her husband
to get around contribution limits” (Mayer 2008).
The fundraisers in this study all approached the concept of the
“household” in different ways. When talking to spouses, Bethany (personal
interview, 20 August 2012) says:
I encourage the candidate to have two different conversations. With the
wife in a household, speak directly to their concerns, have a discussion,
listen for and to issues with which she seems to most closely identify and
about which she has concerns. [The candidate] should then clearly and
sincerely articulate his or her own position and ways of addressing that
issue. With the husband of a household, I encourage the candidate to

36. 36
discuss his ‘win-ability’ in the race, from whom he or she has current
support, and then give an overview of position standings.
Lawrence (personal interview, 22 August 2012) says of speaking to both
wives and husbands:
Some [candidates] do a better job than others. Some members will
always make a point to, when they call a high-powered target, they’ll talk
to the husband, and then they’ll also call and talk to the wife for a
donation. A lot of times, the [candidates] who aren’t really that good
about it will just ask the husband, “Can your wife make a contribution?”
So, again, you kind of miss out on that because you are making
assumptions about the state of the marriage. Does the woman make her
own money, or does the husband say, ‘hey, do you want to do this?’ At
the same time, we are missing out on creating that personal investment.
Because there we’re not identifying and strengthening that one-on-one
relationship.
Amanda (personal interview, 17 August 2012) says, “I address both
[husbands and wives] unless a protocol presents itself, for instance older women
tend to let their husbands or sons speak for them – finishing their thoughts and
then agreeing with them. Younger couples are more likely to both interact.”
Stephanie (personal email, 20 August 2012) says, “I think there are still
reminiscences of gender roles in place depending on people’s age, location, and
in places like the South, religious affiliation. Therefore, it was/is the man’s role to
handle anything politically oriented.” Furthermore, a role is also played by the
prioritization of husband’s names on household chequebooks. Bethany
(personal email, 20 August 2012) says, “Many times donations from spouses are
made in a husband’s name because traditionally their name is first on a personal
cheque. If there is no specific name written on a donation as the donor, the first

37. 37
name on the cheque is used.” Stephanie (personal email, 20 August 2012) also
says, “When you get a cheque and don’t know who you got it from, you go with
the last name on the cheques – and it tends to be the man, or who signs it...there
were some signatures I couldn’t read, so I went with the man.”
Why Do Women “Not Give?” What Fundraisers Think
When asked why they think women do not give on the same political
levels as men, the participants attributed it to socio-economic reasons and also to
women’s attitudes towards the political process. Lawrence (personal interview,
22 August 2012) believes:
Income equality plays a big factor. If you’re looking at political donors
across the spectrum, a certain percentage are women who meet the
threshold income to give politically. And while there are increasing
numbers of women in executive roles, it’s nowhere near parity with males.
So you’re looking at a smaller population that can actually give. So to a
certain degree, I would expect that women are going to be more careful
with their giving.
Stephanie (personal email, 20 August 2012) says, “I think women are more
worried about caring for their families and children, and they also tend to be more
practical with their funds.” Amanda (personal interview, 17 August 2012) echoes
this sentiment, “I believe that traditionally women make less money than men
therefore have less to contribute. Especially in cases where the woman is a
working woman. She would obviously be working for a reason. Also, when I
have had contact with women who are working and also married or in a
committed relationship I found that they will discuss with their partners before
making a contribution.” Also, Emilie (personal interview, 20 August 2012) says,
”Women may want to be politically involved, but they have more on their plate
than ever before.” As Kate (personal interview, 20 August 2012) argues:

38. 38
Women also have a lot more going on in terms of running their
households. You know, working women and they’re taking their kids to
school; they’re taking them to soccer practice. Clichés still exist in the
majority of households and…I find that for men, it’s more that they
budget, they budget that they are going to do X number of campaign
contributions. It’s part of what their personal budget is, whereas women,
don’t really include that in their budgets, you know, in their household
budgets.
But beside the lack of time and money, several of the participants think that
women approach the concept of fundraising differently than men do. Ashley
(personal interview, 20 August 2012) thinks that women “don’t give because they
don’t quite see it as a civic duty. But fundraising is the necessary evil of politics,
and if you want to be part of the process, then you need to accept this.” Kate
(personal interview, 20 August 2012) says:
[Men] think [fundraising is] part of the political process, and for women it’s
about turning out the vote, grass roots, and energetic support versus
monetarily supporting. I think women, for a very long time, never really
thought of it being part of the political process, and those who are engaged
politically on campaigns for volunteer efforts… I find that they never really
looked at fundraising as part of it. However, there are exceptions… but their
focus is more on grass roots fundraising versus the high dollar, big
cheques.
Emilie (personal interview, 20 August 2012) thinks, “women have a different
social thing about asking others for money. There’s a social, cultural barrier, and
there’s a big barrier. I think politics…it’s the good old boy’s club. Which is why
women are still, I think, turned off by politics.” Elizabeth (personal email, 20
August 2012) also believes that fundraising from men is a legacy of the “good old
boy’s club” of past elections. She says:

39. 39
When I started working on campaigns a little over 10 years ago, fundraising
was predominately male. Most of the fundraising firms were started and
owned by males and a lot of the finance directors were males. I don't think
10 years is that long of a time, but without having any real statistics, I would
say that fundraising is predominately female now. So you had men asking
other men for money, and since they have the giving history, maybe that is
why we are still asking the men for the money.
While there is no empirical data on the gender breakdown of campaign
fundraisers, anecdotal evidence suggests that, like most sectors in political
consultancy (Thurber 1998; Thurber and Nelson 2000), fundraising has long
been a male dominated industry. A study conducted ten years ago (Thurber and
Nelson 2000, p. 30) found that the principals in campaign consulting firms were
primarily white (98 percent) and male (82 percent). They were well educated
(only 6 percent without a college degree) and well paid. Interestingly, these
demographic characteristics are identical to that of the majority of elected officials
and campaign contributors. Elizabeth’s insight above suggests that even female
fundraisers have inherited a male dominant institution, which the day-to-day
demands of the job meaning that they have perpetuated the same prejudices of
their male predecessors.
Discussion
The participant interviews reveal a candid discourse of institutional
discrimination towards women within the fundraising community. Rather than
being internalized, much of this bias is clearly acknowledged by the participants.
All of the fundraisers in this sample have engaged in some form of solicitation
that specifically targets women as donors, and by using methods that are
generally different than how they target male donors. All the fundraisers in this
sample have strikingly gendered and narrow assumptions about men and women
as donors. Additionally, the findings imply that at least some components of the
process of fundraising, a significant aspect of modern American politics, have

40. 40
been normalized as distinctly masculine. In contrast, women have been
constructed as the “other,” as if it they were a minority group with their own
particular interests, beliefs, and socio-economic circumstances. This evidently
masculine lens of fundraising (adopted by even women fundraisers) provokes
some important questions: to what extent do the gendered assumptions that
may define the fundraising industry impact the electoral process? To what extent
do they reinforce gender binaries and impact gender performativity throughout
society?
The political discourse, discernable from this small sample of fundraisers,
carves women into a cohesive group with particular needs and, moreover,
characterizes this group as a variable that is defined by its difference to the
constant – the masculine. Campaign slogans like “Women for Brown: He’s For
Us” highlight this distinction; women are characterized as “us,” understood in
their essential opposition to men and the implied neutrality of masculinity. This
reflects the “second sex” theory posited by Beauvoir, ”for a man represents both
the positive and the neutral, as indicated by the common use of man to designate
human beings in general; whereas woman represents only the negative, defined
by limiting criteria, without reciprocity" (Beauvoir 1949, p.5). Political campaigns
treat women as a distinct class, as revealed by their insistence that women
require gender specific groups, targeted slogans with pink font, and an emphasis
on “women’s issues” as incentives for participation.
Although women make up over half of the U.S. population, and over half of
the voting turnout, they continue to be marginalized by an historically masculine
discourse. In reality, they are not a minority, and they are not homogenous.
They have a multitude of identities, responsibilities, beliefs, but campaigns seem
to regard them as a single bloc that is only interested in luncheons and abortions.
Similarly, because a multitude of political issues and aspects of the solicitation
process have been defined as “feminine,” this could have the effect of alienating

41. 41
those who do may not conform to the allocations of this gendered system.
The similarities of many of the responses from the participants in this study
suggests that in many ways, the act of fundraising is a learned performance (See
Butler’s theory of gender performativity in Gender Trouble, 1990). For decades,
the fundraising industry was made up of white, male fundraisers soliciting funds
from white, male donors on behalf of white, male politicians. Yet, evidence
implies that many more women have entered the occupation in the last several
years (Rapoport 2010). Undoubtedly, the women who enter the profession of
fundraising find themselves negotiating a traditionally male space, and the
gendered character of fundraising may be a legacy of this negotiation process.
As Elizabeth (personal email, 20 August 2012) suggests above, perhaps a
masculine style of fundraising, designed by men and for men, has been adopted
and unchanged by the current generation of fundraisers. This echoes the
observation of Issenberg (2012, p.4): “Over a generation, helping Americans
choose their leaders has grown into a $6 billion-per-year industry. But the new
profession hums along on a mixture of tradition and inertia, unable to learn from
its successes or its failures.”
From this paper’s research it seems that these learned performances have
remained inflexible to the changing dynamics of women as individuals with
increasingly influential economic power. But to what extent does the action of
gendered solicitation actually create gendered subjects?
Gender differences in motives for giving are apparent in the available
evidence. Green et al. (1999) found that women contributors typically donate for
ideological reasons, and men give for business and material incentives – a
refrain that was echoed by the participants in this study. The participants also
spoke of women’s higher preference for social events compared to men.
Likewise, Francia et al. (2001, p.115) found that 28% of women compared to
18% of men found “social gratification” to be “very important” when making a

42. 42
campaign contribution. The interviews in this study confirm that the solicitation
process is indeed gendered. But are these gendered differences a cause or a
product of the institutionalized bias in political fundraising? Can we say that
fundraisers have directly contributed to the gender gap in political donations?
If we abide by Butler’s theory of performativity (1990) and also subscribe to
the Foucauldian (1977; 1990) argument that gender is a product of the discursive
power of regulatory forces, then we can conclude that the gendered discourse of
fundraising in politics plays a key role in shaping gender identity in American
society. Fundraisers are an extension of the campaigns they represent, and while
their views do not necessary reflect the views of the candidates for whom they
work, they do indicate an underlying cultural bias within the political discourse
and among political elites. Their views are especially noteworthy when
considered alongside the theories of Michel Foucault and Judith Butler on
regulatory power and discursive construction. Foucault (1977; 1990) argues that
gender is a construct that is socially engineered by regulatory forces for the
purpose of being used to control and manipulate the subjects it creates. These
regulatory discourses create spaces in which gendered identities are shaped,
classified, and reinforced. Through the political construction of differences,
sexual and gender identities become a way to divide and categorize individuals
into distinct hierarchies in order to maintain a level of social control. The
activities of fundraisers could be seen as a powerful regulatory force exerted
upon the gendered structuring of campaign finance.
In some regard, fundraisers are performing and perpetuating a hegemonic
display of the political elite’s prejudices regarding gender roles in campaign
finance. This in turn becomes a dichotomous script of gender, and the roles of
“masculine” and “feminine” are performed election after election by the
candidates, the fundraisers, and the donors. This relates to the theories of
Butler, who adapted Foucault’s theoretical framework to argue that gender is a

43. 43
learned behavioral performance, and it is the very act of performing that
constitutes identity. In Gender Trouble (1990), Butler notes “Foucault points out
that juridical systems of power produce the subjects they subsequently come to
represent. Juridical notions of power appear to regulate political life in purely
negative terms… But the subjects regulated by such structures are, by virtue of
being subjected to them, formed, defined, and reproduced in accordance with the
requirements of those structures” (1990, p.2). While Foucault is frequently
accused of having a gender-blindness in his power theories, Butler argues that
essentialist gender binaries play a significant role in the normalization of
heteronormativity. According to her theory of performativity, categories such as
male or female are not biologically determined, but are the product of repeated
performances by the body. Yet these performances are “artificially imposed” by
the “regulatory norms in order to ascertain the workings of heterosexual
hegemony in the formation of what qualifies as a viable body” (Butler 1990, p.2).
Butler recognizes that the significances assigned to bodies are a product of
“regulatory ideals,” or idealized norms that are continually being scripted by
hegemonic social conventions and ideologies. These regulatory ideals provide
approved behaviors and reward heteronormative practices. Within this
framework, fundraising, as an extension of politics, becomes a regulatory
process that generates gendered subjects.
These gendered subjects have distinct ideological and behavioral
differences, but because political fundraisers remain rigidly interested in the
perceived strengths of their masculine subjects, they are largely overlooking the
potentially transformative strengths of their feminine subjects. The attitudes of
the participants in this study reveal a pervasive masculine legacy that defines
fundraising, and to these fundraisers, the “good donor” has male traits, and the
“bad donor” has female traits. However, this binary view of potential donors
dismisses the different, yet potentially game-changing traits of women as donors,
which – given the importance of fundraising – could have a profound effect on the

44. 44
landscape of U.S. politics.

45. 45
Conclusion
To what extent is political campaign solicitation gendered in U.S. politics?
The answer is a great deal. The evidence presented in this paper indicates that
campaign fundraisers adhere to strikingly gendered approaches in their attitudes
towards potential donors, and this manifests itself in specifically gendered
methods of solicitation that distinctly categorize men and women by their
differences. This paper’s research suggests that fundraisers may play a powerful
role in the creation of gendered subjects within campaign finance. The
fundraisers interviewed for this paper’s research appear to have inherited some
of the gendered prejudices of their predecessors, who occupied a male
dominated profession and a male dominated solicitation process that reflected a
now outdated socio-economic context. This paper’s findings have four main
categories of implications: practical; political; theoretical; and research
implications.
First, there are the practical implications for fundraisers. Women are a
huge untapped financial resource in U.S. politics. Fundraisers have remained
inflexible to the changing dynamics of women as individuals with increasingly
influential economic power. From a purely financial standpoint, political
campaigns are missing out on a substantial amount of potential money from
women donors that could potentially be accessed if fundraisers changed their
attitudes and methods. If women gave at the same, or at even at a fraction, of
the levels of men, hundreds of millions of additional dollars could potentially be
injected into the already exceptionally expensive world of electoral politics.
This has political implications. Given the scale and potential for giving, an
increase in women’s contributions could have a lasting impact. Donors have
access to highly influential spaces within American politics, and they are active
players in a world that has a history of being run by men and marginalizing
women. While one can only speculate as to what the political landscape would

46. 46
look like if women’s contributions increased, many analysts argue that an
increase in contributions by women would substantially change the demographic
makeup of Congress (WCF Foundation 2009). The logic goes that if women
were more prolific donors, they would have far more influence with decision-
makers. The implication of this paper’s tentative findings are that, given the
financial resources of women in the U.S., new approaches and attitudes to
fundraising could have a major impact on policy.
Thirdly, there are the theoretical implications of this paper’s research. In
Gender Trouble, Butler (1990, p.149) writes, "If identities were no longer fixed as
the premises of a political syllogism, and politics no longer understood as a set of
practices derived from the alleged interests that belong to a set of ready-made
subjects, a new configuration of politics would surely emerge from the ruins of the
old." Butler and Foucault argue that gender identities are manufactured ideals
that are constructed and enforced by regulatory systems of power. Accordingly,
this paper’s assessment of fundraisers’ attitudes and methods indicate that the
process of fundraising is a discursive force that creates gendered subjects.
These gendered subjects have distinct characteristics, but because political
fundraisers remain interested only in the perceived strengths of their masculine
subjects, they are largely overlooking the potentially politically game-changing
strengths of their feminine subjects. Influenced by the gender “performances” of
others, fundraisers repeat these performances, perpetuating a regulatory gender
system at the heart of U.S. power politics. As this paper has explained,
fundraising is deeply embedded at the centre of all election politics in the U.S. If
money is power, then political campaign fundraisers in particular, and other
political elites in general, hold much potential power over the structures and
identities of gender in the U.S.
The research implications of this paper are also extensive. As this paper
demonstrates, the existing literature has been unable to explain the disparity in

47. 47
political contributions between men and women. The campaign finance literature
examines the demographic profile of political donors, but fails to enquire into the
reasons for the gender gap in giving. The literature on campaign finance that
does focus on gender only examines the dynamics of women candidates. The
literature on political participation does provide important insights into the role of
socio-economic resources and the influence of non-political institutions on female
participation, but it fails to examine the role of political institutions. While there
are some studies that do identify the gender gap in political giving, they do not
explore the reasons behind the disparity. There are no studies that have
examined solicitation methods as a way of better understanding why women do
not give at the same levels as men.
This study has reinformed the importance of mobilization, and it is unusual
in its examination of campaign fundraisers specifically. The role of mobilization
efforts is, as this study has shown, an acutely understudied area, and the
exploratory research of this paper into the attitudes and activities of fundraisers
regarding the solicitation of female donors indicates that it may not only be
women that are holding back money – it also may be fundraisers who are holding
back women. While no firm or definitive conclusions can be made from a small
study such as this, the initial findings from even this exploratory analysis are
striking and warrant further and concerted research on resource mobilization
methods and the attitudes of fundraisers in shaping the gender gap in political
giving – as well as the political and social implications. Political fundraising is at
the intersection of money, power, and gender, and clearly has a potentially
significant role to play. But political fundraising is an insular and murky world, at
least to outsiders, and remains understudied. This is a gap that needs rectifying.
It is important to stress that this paper’s purpose is not to downplay the
importance of the gender gap in socio-economic resources in creating gender
dynamics. This gap is an important reality for many women in the U.S. and is
indisputable. But this paper’s research suggests that we cannot revert to only the

48. 48
well-established and general socio-economic explanations for gender disparities
in social, political, and economic life. A striking fact of political donations in the
U.S. is that when men’s earnings increase, their political contributions increase
accordingly. But when women’s earnings increase, by contrast, their political
contributions do not (Burns et al. 2001, p.264). Women evidently have not
adopted the same behaviors as men in this sphere, even when they obtain the
opportunities to do so. As with all human phenomena, there will be complex
causes for this. Socio-economic influences and socialization will play a role, as
they do in all gender dynamics. But, this paper’s findings indicate that there may
be much more to this phenomenon than that, with political elites perpetuating a
gendered architecture for political giving that is capable of holding back the
impact of female participation in U.S. politics, even in the face of their
accumulation of significant economic resources.

49. 49
Works Cited
Andersen, K. 1975. Working Women and Political Participation, 1952-
1972. American Journal of Political Science 19(3), pp. 439–453.
Anon 2011. Gender Differences In Voter Turnout. Center for American
Women and Politcs.
Baker, A. 2006. Reexamining the Gender Implications of Campaign
Finance Reform: How Higher Ceilings on Individual Donations
Disproportionately Impact Female Candidates. Mod. Am. 2, p. 18.
Bartlett, B. 2009. Money and Politics. Forbes. Available at:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/11/terry-mcauliffe-virginia-primaries-
opinions-columnists-fundraising.html.
Baxter, S. and Lansing, M. 1983. Women and politics: The visible
majority. University of Michigan Press Ann Arbor.
Beauvoir, S. 2011. The Second Sex. 1st ed. Vintage.
Beckel, M. 2011. Political Donors’ Gender Disparity. Open Secrets Blog:
Center for Responsive Politics. Available at:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/08/political-donors-gender-
disparity.html.
Beitz, C.R. 1984. Political Finance in the United States: A Survey of
Research. Ethics 95(1), pp. 129–148.
Biersack, R., Herrnson, Paul S. and Wilcox, C. 1994. Risky business?:
PAC decisionmaking in congressional elections. M.E. Sharpe.
Bourque, S.C. and Grossholtz, J. 1974. Politics an Unnatural Practice:
Political Science Looks at Female Participation. Politics & Society 4(2),
pp. 225–266.
Brady, H.E., Verba, S. and Schlozman, K.L. 1995. Beyond Ses: A
Resource Model of Political Participation. The American Political Science
Review 89(2), pp. 271–294.
Bronars, S. and Lott, J. 1997. Do Campaign Donations Alter How a
Politician Votes? Or, Do Donors Support Candidates Who Value the
Same Things That They Do? Journal of Law and Economics 40(2), pp.
317–350.
Brown, C.W., Powell, L.W. and Wilcox, C. 1995. Serious Money:
Fundraising and Contributing in Presidential Nomination Campaigns.
Cambridge University Press.
Burell, B. 1994. A Woman’s Place Is in the House. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Burell, B. 2005. Campaign Finance: Women’s Experience in the Modern
Era. In: Wilcox, C. and Thomas eds. Women and Elective Office: Past,
Present, and Future. Oxford University Press, pp. 26–40.

50. 50
Burell, B. 1990. The Presence of Women Candidates and the Role of
Gender in Campaigns for the State Legislature in an Urban Setting: The
Case of Massachusetts. Women & Politics 10, pp. 85–102.
Burell, B. 1985. Women’s and Men’s Campaigns for the U.S. House of
Representatives, 1972-1982: A Finance Gap? American Politics Quarterly
13, pp. 251–272.
Burns, N., Schlozman, K.L. and Verba, S. 2001. The Private Roots of
Public Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Harvard
University Press.
Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.
Routledge.
Catalyst 2012. Women CEOs of the Fortune 1000.
CBS In a first, women surpass men in college degrees [Online]. Available
at: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-20057608.html [Accessed: 29
August 2012].
Center for Responsive Politics: About Us [Online]. Available at:
www.opensecrets.org/about/tour/php.
Cho, W.K. and Gimpel, J.G. 2007. Prospecting for (Campaign) Gold.
American Journal of Political Science 51(2), pp. 255–268.
Clark, C. and Clark, J. 1986. Models of Gender and Political Participation
in the United States. Women & Politics 6(1), pp. 5–25.
Clawson, D. 1998. Dollars And Votes. Temple University Press.
Conway, M.M. 2001. Women and Political Participation. PS: Political
Science and Politics 34(2), pp. 231–233.
Cotter, C.C., Gibson, J.L., Bibby, J.F. and Huckshorn, R.J. 1989. Party
Organizations in American Politics. University of Pittsburgh Pre.
Crespin, M.H. and Deitz, J.L. 2010. If You Can’t Join ’Em, Beat ’Em: The
Gender Gap in Individual Donations to Congressional Candidates.
Political Research Quarterly 63(3), pp. 581–593.
Dawson, R.E., Prewitt, K. and Dawson, K.S. 1977. Political socialization:
an analytic study. Little, Brown.
Day, C., Hadley, C. and Duffy Brown, M. 2001. Gender, Feminism, and
Partisanship among Women’s PAC Contributors. Social Science
Quarterly 42(4), pp. 687–700.
Day, C.L. and Hadley, C.D. 2001. Feminist Diversity: The Policy
Preferences of Women’s PAC Contributors. Political Research Quarterly
54(3), pp. 673–686.
Day, C.L. and Hadley, C.D. 2004. Women’s PAC’s: Abortion and
Elections. 1st ed. Prentice Hall.
Dychtwald, M. and Larson, C. 2010. Influence: How Women’s Soaring
Economic Power Will Transform Our World for the Better. First ed. Voice.

51. 51
Eismeier, T.J. and Pollock, P. 1986. Strategy and Choice in
Congressional Elections: The Role of Political Action Committees.
American Journal of Political Science 30(1), p. 197.
Eismeier, T.J. and Pollock, P.H. 1986. Politics and Markets: Corporate
Money in American National Elections. British Journal of Political Science
16(03), pp. 287–309.
Farrell, D.M., Kolodny, R. and Medvic, Stephen 2001. Parties and
Campaign Professionals in a Digital Age Political Consultants in the
United States and Their Counterparts Overseas. The Harvard
International Journal of Press/Politics 6(4), pp. 11–30.
Faucheux, Ron 2003. Winning elections: political campaign management,
strategy & tactics. M. Evans and Co.
Foucault, M. 1995. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Knopf
Doubleday Publishing Group.
Foucault, M. 1990. The history of sexuality. Vintage Books.
Fox, Richard L. and Lawless, J.L. 2010. If Only They’d Ask: Gender,
Recruitment, and Political Ambition. The Journal of Politics 72(02), pp.
310–326.
Francia, P. 2001. Early Fundraising by Nonincumbent Female
Congressional Candidates: The Importance of Women’s PACs. Women &
Politics 23(1/2), pp. 7–20.
Francia, P.L., Green, John C., Herrnson, Paul S., Powell, L.W. and
Wilcox, C. 2003. The Financiers of Congressional Elections: Investors,
Ideologues, and Intimates. Columbia University Press.
Gopoian, J.D., Smith, H. and Smith, W. 1984. What Makes PACs Tick?
An Analysis of the Allocation Patterns of Economic Interest Groups.
American Journal of Political Science 28(2), p. 259.
Green, J., Herrnson, P., Powell, L. and Wilcox, C. 1999. Women Big
Donors Moblized in Congressional Elections. Research supported by the
Joyce Foundation.
Green, J.C. 2004. The Times...Are They A-Changing? An Examination of
the Impact of the Value of Campaign Resources for Women and Men
Candidates for the US House of Representatives. Women & Politics
24(4), pp. 1–29.
Greenstein, F.I. 1965. Children and politics. Yale University Press.
Herrnson, P. and Faucheux, R 2000. Candidates Devote Substantial
Time and Effort to Fundraising. Pew Charitable Trusts.
Herrnson, P. and Lay, J.C. 2003. Women Running ‘as Women’:
Candidate Gender, Campaign Issues, and Voter-Targeting Strategies.
The Journal of Politics 65(1), pp. 244–255.
Herrnson, P. S 1989. National Party Decision Making, Strategies, and
Resource Distribution in Congressional Elections. The Western Political
Quarterly, pp. 301–323.

52. 52
Herrnson, Paul S. 1988. Party Campaigning in the 1980s. Harvard
University Press.
Herrnson, Paul S. and Abbe, O.G. 2000. The Professionalization of
Political Campaigns: An Analysis of Down Ballot Races.
Hess, R.D., Torney, J. and Torney-Purta, J. 2006. The Development of
Political Attitudes in Children. Aldine.
Inglehart, R. and Norris, P. 2000. The Developmental Theory of the
Gender Gap: Women’s and Men’s Voting Behavior in Global Perspective.
International Political Science Review 21(4), pp. 441–463.
Issenberg, S. 2012. The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning
Campaigns. Crown.
Johnson, L. and Learned, A. 2004. Don’t Think Pink: What Really Makes
Women Buy--and how to Increase Your Share of this Crucial Market.
AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.
Lawless, J.L., Fox, Richard L. and Fox, Richard Logan 2010. It Still Takes
a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. Cambridge University
Press.
Leighley, J.E. 1995. Attitudes, Opportunities and Incentives: A Field
Essay on Political Participation. Political Research Quarterly 48(1), pp.
181–209.
Masters, M.F. and Baysinger, B.D. 1985. Research Notes. The
Determinants of Funds Raised by Corporate Political Action Committees:
An Empirical Examination. Academy of Management Journal 28(3), pp.
654–664.
Mayer, L. 2008. Home Is Where the Cash Is [Online]. Available at:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/06/home-is-where-the-cash-
is.html [Accessed: 21 August 2012].
Medvic, S 2001. Political Consultantsin US Congree Elections. Ohio State
University Press.
Medvic, S.K. 1998. The Effectiveness of the Political Consultant as a
Campaign Resource. PS: Political Science and Politics 31(2), pp. 150–
154.
Mesch, D. 2010. Women Give 2010: New Research about Women and
Giving. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.
NPR Coming To A Political Campaign Near You: Outside Money, And
Lots Of It : NPR [Online]. Available at:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/05/16/152772207/coming-to-a-
political-campaign-near-you-outside-money-and-lots-of-it [Accessed: 3
September 2012a].
NPR Senator By Day, Telemarketer By Night : NPR [Online]. Available at:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/03/30/149648666/senator-by-day-
telemarketer-by-night [Accessed: 3 September 2012b].
NPR Take The Money And Run For Office : NPR [Online]. Available at:

53. 53
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/03/26/149390968/take-the-money-
and-run-for-office [Accessed: 3 September 2012c].
NPR Where Money Meets Power In Washington : NPR [Online]. Available
at: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/04/150004648/where-money-
meets-power-in-washington [Accessed: 3 September 2012d].
O’Connor, K. and Yanus, A.B. 2009. The Chilly Climate Continues:
Defrosting the Gender Divide in Political Science and Politics. Journal of
Political Science Education 5(2), pp. 108–118.
Parry, G. 2005. Political Elites. ECPR Press.
Peoples, C.D. 2010. Contributor Influence in Congress: Social Ties and
PAC Effects on U.S. House Policymaking. Sociological Quarterly 51(4),
pp. 649–677.
Potters, J. and Sloof, R. 1996. Interest groups: A survey of empirical
models that try to assess their influence. European Journal of Political
Economy 12(3), pp. 403–442.
Rapoport, A. 2010. You’ve Come a Long Way, Maybe [Online]. Available
at: http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2010-legislative-
races/female-political-consultants-still-face-unique-cha/ [Accessed: 25
June 2012].
Sabato, L. 1984. Pac Power: Inside the World of Political Action
Committees. Norton.
Sapiro, V. and Johnston Conover, P. 1997. The Variable Gender Basis of
Electoral Politics: Gender and Context in the 1992 US Election. British
Journal of Political Science 27(04), pp. 497–523.
Schlozman, K.L., Burns, N. and Verba, S. 1994. Gender and the
Pathways to Participation: The Role of Resources. The Journal of Politics
56(04), pp. 963–990.
Sherrod Brown Campaign Launches ‘Women For Sherrod Brown’
[Online]. Available at:
http://www.sherrodbrown.com/blog/news/2012/sherrod-brown-campaign-
launches-women-for-sherrod-brown/ [Accessed: 13 September 2012].
Sorauf, F.J. and Beck, P.A. 1988. Party politics in America. Scott,
Foresman.
Stone, K., Rice, S. and Angel, J. 1991. Women, money, and political
clout. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising 2(Winter), pp. 107–
115.
Stratmann, T. 1991. What Do Campaign Contributions Buy? Deciphering
Causal Effects of Money and Votes. Southern Economic Journal 57(3),
pp. 606–620.
The Economist 2009. Women in the workforce: Female power. The
Economist. Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/15174418
[Accessed: 4 September 2012].
Thurber, J.A. 1998. The Study of Campaign Consultants: A Subfield in