Representativeness and Motivations of the Contemporary Donorate: Results from Merged Survey and Administrative Records
- 558 Downloads
Only a small portion of Americans make campaign donations, yet because ambitious politicians need these resources, this group may be particularly important for shaping political outcomes. We investigate the characteristics and motivations of the donorate using a novel dataset that combines administrative records of two types of political participation, contributing and voting, with a rich set of survey variables. These merged observations allow us to examine differences in demographics, validated voting, and ideology across subgroups of the population and to evaluate the motivations of those who donate. We find that in both parties donors are consistently and notably divergent from non-donors to a larger degree than voters are divergent from non-voters. Of great interest, in both parties donors are more ideologically extreme than other partisans, including primary voters. With respect to why individuals contribute, we show that donors appear responsive to their perception of the stakes in the election. We also present evidence that inferences about donor ideology derived from the candidates donors give to may not closely reflect the within-party policy ideology of those donors. Overall, our results suggest that donations are a way for citizens motivated by the perceived stakes of elections to increase their participation beyond solely turning out.
KeywordsCampaign donations Campaign Finance Political participation
- Ahler, D. J., & Broockman, D. E. (N.d.). “Does Polarization Imply Poor Representation? A New Perspective on the ‘Disconnect’ Between Politicians and Voters.” Working paper, Stanford Graduate School of Business, retrieved at https://people.stanford.edu/dbroock/sites/default/files/ahler_broockman_ideological_innocence.pdf.
- Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Ansolabehere, S. 2012. COOPERATIVE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 2012: COMMON CONTENT. [Computer File] Release 1: April 15, 2013. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University [producer] http://cces.gov.harvard.edu.
- Barber, M. 2014a. “Access, Ideology, or Both? Why PACs and Individuals Give Money.” Working paper, Brigham Young University.Google Scholar
- Barber, M. 2014b. “Representing the Preferences of Donors, Partisans, and Voters in the U.S. Senate.” Working paper, Brigham Young University.Google Scholar
- Barber, M., Canes-Wrone, B., & Thrower, S. (2016). “Sophisticated Donors: What Motivates Individual Campaign Contributors?” Forthcoming American Journal of Political Science, available at http://michaeljaybarber.com/research/.
- Bartels, L. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Bonica, A. (2013). Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections: Public version 1.0 [Computer file]. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Libraries. http://data.stanford.edu/dime.
- Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
- Fowler, L. L., & McClure, R. D. (1990). Political ambition. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Francia, P. L., Green, J. C., Herrnson, P. S., Powell, L. W., & Wilcox, C. (2003). The financiers of congressional elections: investors, ideologues, and intimates. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Gilens, M. (2012). Affluence and influence: Economic inequality and political power in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Hall, A. B., & Snyder, J. M. (N.d.). “Candidate Ideology and Electoral Success.” Working paper, Harvard University, available at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11481940/Hall_Snyder_Ideology.pdf.
- LaRaja, R., & Schaffner, B. (2015). Campaign finance and political polarization: When purists prevail. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
- Schattschneider, E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. Rinehart and Winston: Holt.Google Scholar