Political Behavior

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 565–600 | Cite as

The Political Ecology of Opinion in Big-Donor Neighborhoods

  • Brittany H. Bramlett
  • James G. Gimpel
  • Frances E. Lee
Original Paper

Abstract

Major campaign donors are highly concentrated geographically. A relative handful of neighborhoods accounts for the bulk of all money contributed to political campaigns. Public opinion in these elite neighborhoods is very different from that in the country as a whole and in low-donor areas. On a number of prominent political issues, the prevailing viewpoint in high-donor neighborhoods can be characterized as cosmopolitan and libertarian, rather than populist or moralistic. Merging Federal Election Commission contribution data with three recent large-scale national surveys, we find that these opinion differences are not solely the result of big-donor areas’ high concentration of wealthy and educated individuals. Instead, these neighborhoods have a distinctive political ecology that likely reinforces and intensifies biases in opinion. Given that these locales are the origin for the lion’s share of campaign donations, they may steer the national political agenda in unrepresentative directions.

Keywords

Campaign fundraising Public opinion Political elites Campaign donors Political ecology Political geography 

References

  1. Agnew, J. A. (1987). Place and politics: The geographical mediation of state and society. Boston: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  2. Apinunmahakul, A., & Devlin, R. A. (2008). Social networks and private philanthropy. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baybeck, B., & McClurg, S. (2005). What do they know and how do they know it: An examination of citizen awareness of context. American Politics Research, 33(4), 492–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, P. A., & Jennings, M. K. (1991). Family traditions, political periods and the development of partisan orientations. Journal of Politics, 53(3), 742–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential election. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bishop, B. (2008). The big sort: Why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  7. Brady, H. E., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (1999). Prospecting for participants: Rational expectations and the recruitment of political activists. American Political Science Review, 93(1), 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, C., Powell, L., Wilcox, C. (1993). Sex and the political contributor: The gender gap among contributors to presidential candidates in 1988. Political Research Quarterly, 46(3), 355–376.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, C. W., Jr., Powell, L. W., & Wilcox, C. (1995). Serious money: Fundraising and contributing in presidential nomination campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper, A. (2003, August). Soliciting support: Attracting donors, anticipating the impact of reform. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  12. Cuba, L., & Hummon, D. (1993). A place to call home: Identification with dwelling, community, and region. The Sociological Quarterly, 34, 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Danielson, M. N. (1976). The politics of exclusion. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fischer, C. S. (1975a). Toward a subcultural theory of urbanism. American Journal of Sociology, 80(6), 1319–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischer, C. S. (1975b). The effect of urban life on traditional values. Social Forces, 53(3), 420–432.Google Scholar
  16. Fischer, C. S. (1995). The subcultural theory of urbanism: A twentieth-year assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 101(3), 543–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Florida, R. (2002). The economic geography of talent. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92(4), 743–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Francia, P. L., Green, J. C., Herrnson, P. S., Powell, L. W., & Wilcox, C. (2003). The financiers of congressional elections. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Frank, T. (2010, February 24). What’s the matter with democrats? Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  20. Gimpel, J. G., Lay, J. C., & Schuknecht, J. E. (2003). Cultivating democracy: Civic environments and political socialization in America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gimpel, J. G., & Lee, F. E. (2006). The geography of electioneering: Campaigning for votes and campaigning for money. In M. P. McDonald & J. Samples (Eds.), The marketplace of democracy (pp. 125–148). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution and Cato Institute.Google Scholar
  22. Gimpel, J. G., Lee, F. E., & Kaminski, J. (2006). The political geography of campaign contributions. Journal of Politics, 68(August), 626–639.Google Scholar
  23. Gimpel, J. G., Lee, F. E., & Pearson-Merkowitz, S. (2008). The check is in the mail: Interdistrict funding flows in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gimpel, J. G., & Schuknecht, J. (2003). Patchwork nation: Sectionalism and political change in American politics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  25. Grant, J. T., & Rudolph, T. J. (2002). To give or not to give: Modeling individuals’ contribution decisions. Political Behavior, 24(1), 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Higley, S. R. (1995). Privilege, power, and place: The geography of the American upper class. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  27. Hill, S. J., Lo, J., Vavreck, L., & Zaller, J. (2007). The opt-in internet panel: Survey mode, sampling methodology and the implications for political research. University of California, Los Angeles (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
  28. Huckfeldt, R., Beck, P. A., Dalton, R. J., & Levine, J. (1995). Political environments, cohesive social groups, and the communication of public opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 1025–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1968). The transmission of political values from parent to child. American Political Science Review, 62(1), 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Joe, W. Y., Malbin, M. L., Wilcox, C., Brusoe, P. W., Pimlott, J. P. (2008). Who are the individual donors to gubernatorial and state legislative elections. The Campaign Finance Institute Small Donor Project, Paper Delivered at the Midwest Political Science Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, April 3–6.Google Scholar
  32. Johnston, R. G. (1991). A question of place: Exploring the practice of human geography. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. King, G. (1996). Why context should not count. Political Geography, 15(2), 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laumann, E. O. (1973). Bonds of pluralism: The form and substance of urban social networks. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Lindstrom, B. (1997). A sense of place: Housing selection on Chicago’s north shore. The Sociological Quarterly, 38(1), 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Manjoo, F. (2005, February 25). Bush’s bait and switch. Salon. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/25/sellout/index.html.
  37. Massey, D. S. (1996). The age of extremes: Concentrated affluence and poverty in the twenty-first century. Demography, 33(4), 395–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Massey, D. S., & Eggers, M. L. (1993). The spatial concentration of affluence and poverty during the 1970s. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 29(2), 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Massey, D. S., & Fischer, M. J. (2003). The geography of inequality in the United States, 1950–2000. In W. Gale & J. R. Pack (Eds.), Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs. Washington: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  40. McClosky, H., & Zaller, J. (1984). The American ethos: Public attitudes toward capitalism and democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Mosk, M., & Cohen, S. (2008, October 22). Big donors drive Obama’s money edge. Washington Post, A1.Google Scholar
  42. Mutz, D. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Niemi, R. G., & Jennings, M. K. (1991). Issues and inheritance in the formation of party identification. American Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 970–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ostrower, F. (1995). Why the wealthy give: The culture of elite philanthropy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2008). Liberal dems top conservative reps in donations, activism. Survey Report, October 23. http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1412.
  46. Putnam, R. D. (1966). Political attitudes and the local community. American Political Science Review, 60, 640–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  48. Romer, D., Kenski, K., Winneg, K., Adasiewicz, C., & Jamieson, K. H. (2006). Capturing campaign dynamics 2000 & 2004: The National Annenberg Election Survey. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  49. Sirgy, M. J., Grzeskowiak, S., & Su, C. (2005). Explaining housing preference and choice: The role of self-congruity and functional congruity. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20(4), 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tuch, S. (1987). Urbanism, region, and tolerance revisited: The case of racial prejudice. American Sociological Review, 52, 504–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Wilson, T. C. (1991). Urbanism, migration, and tolerance: A reassessment. American Sociological Review, 56(1), 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brittany H. Bramlett
    • 1
  • James G. Gimpel
    • 1
  • Frances E. Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Government and PoliticsUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations