The Gender Gap in American Politics: How Money in Politics Affects Female Representation
2020, Vol. 12 No. 10 | pg. 1/1
IN THIS ARTICLE
In the 116th United States Congress, women hold 23.2% of House seats and 25% of Senate seats. Down the ballot, across state and local elected offices, women are underrepresented in their communities. This continual disparity presents a fundamental contradiction with America’s founding principle of representative democracy. This paper examines the roots of economic inequality in America, with a focus on the gender wage gap and gender wealth gap as they relate to the political donating tendencies of women. Next, this paper examines the experiences of female candidates as they seek campaign donations. It concludes that current electoral conditions do not support women's political parity, regarding weight of campaign donations and institutional representation. Several policies are suggested to amend this disjunction, such as public campaign funds, federal equal pay legislation, and state legislation to allow for candidates’ campaign funds to cover the cost of childcare.
Women have never experienced equality in American political representation. In the 116th United States Congress, women hold 23.2% of House seats and 26% of Senate seats. In 2020, 28.9% of state-wide elected positions are occupied by women.1 The lack of women in politics has disturbing consequences and limits the potential of our nation. Female politicians are proven to govern in more democratic manners, are more effective at improving the health of their constituents and are more successful and adaptive in pursuit of issue specialization and consensus building despite gender-based hurdles.2 3 Most Americans agree that there are too few women in high political offices.4 There are myriad reasons why this incongruous representation persists. This paper discusses the ways in which money in politics constrains a woman’s ability to make political donations, run for office herself, and reduces her chances of winning the race. The decisiveness of early money in campaigns, demographics of who donates and perception of fundraising skills are all pivotal in this respect.
Gendered Disparities in Political RepresentationUp and down the ballot, women are under-represented by their government. 100% of American Presidents have been male, and 2016 was the first time a major party nominated a female candidate for President. In the current Congress, women make up 23.2% of the House and 26% of the Senate.5 In 2020, 28.9% of state-wide elected positions are occupied by women. There are 9 female Governors, 15 female Lieutenant Governors and 66 women who hold other state-wide positions, such as Attorney General and State Auditor. 29.1% of state legislature offices are held by women, and 20.8% of major American cities have female mayors. These are some of the highest levels of female representation in American history, and yet women still struggle to come close to equal representation with men. The pace of progress in this realm is far from expedient. While female representation in congress went from 13.6% to 23.7% between 2001 and 2020, representation in statewide elected office has only increased 1.3% during the same time. If we continue at the pace we are at now, women will not be equally represented in congress for at least 30 years.6
Furthermore, women in politics do not have a homogenous experience. This diversity of experience is rooted in differences of race and ideology (among other differences of identity) which intersect with gender. The freshman class of the 116th Congress of the United States is the most racially diverse class ever, in addition to having the highest ever number of female electeds. This is due almost entirely to the Democratic caucus, which welcomed a majority-female incoming class in 2018. Conversely, the Republican party added one woman in its incoming class; constituting an overall decrease in Republican women in congress. Additionally, “a third of incoming House Democrats identify as people of color,” compared to 2% of incoming House Republicans.7 In the congress with a record number of congresspeople identifying as women and/or people of color, women are still underrepresented, with a larger lack of representation for women of color. The rate of these disparities is higher among Republican congresspeople compared to their Democratic counterparts. Despite the increased diversity of the new Democratic class, the party is less representative of its base compared to Republicans, as the Democratic base is significantly more diverse.
America and the Nature of Representative Democracy
The lack of women in office is noteworthy for several reasons, the paramount being its inherent clash with the United States’ foundation as a representative democracy. The ideals of the American political system depend on the voices of the people. The founders deliberated extensively about how to build a nation in which decisions would be guided by the will of the majority. This is why so many of us are familiar with one of Abraham Lincoln’s famous lines in the Gettysburg Address, which invoked “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.”8 Granted that during these times, ‘the people’ excluded most of the American population, the intention of Lincoln and others was clear; votes cast by politicians, and the policies which necessitate them, should be informed by citizens at large and not by select interest groups nor royalty. A keystone of American democracy is political equity, or the idea that “all Americans should have an equal opportunity to influence the making of public policy.”9 To protect this idea, Americans were endowed with the right to vote in elections, enabling them to have representation through candidates who will carry the voice of the people into committee meetings, press conferences, and debates on the floors of state and local legislatures. When women face significant barriers to becoming those representatives for their communities, the very basis of representative democracy is weakened.
Economic Inequality and Money in Politics
The influence of money in politics creates a severe barrier to women running for office and getting elected. This nature of this relationship is related to the increasing income and wealth inequality in America. Many of the causes of economic inequality seen today took root in the 1970’s and were catalyzed by global trade dynamics. In the wake of the second World War, Japan and Germany began to rebuild their economies, threatening the competitive wages of American workers. Additionally, the price of oil doubled in the 70’s as a result of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries’ (OPEC) trade embargo. Both of these pressures on the American economy ushered in a period of wage stagnation that is still in effect today; American workers have hardly seen a rise in the market value of their work since 1979.10 At the same time, both the expected productivity of workers and the price of goods have increased. All of these dynamics have put the American working class in a pinch, through the forces of the global and domestic economies of the last 40 years.11
Women bear a disproportionate amount of the economic burden that has been put upon working people. 63% of minimum wage workers are women, and women are overrepresented in many industries which pay their workers the least, like childcare, cleaning services and restaurants.12 13 In the last several decades, more women have entered the workforce and increased the number of hours they work outside the home significantly. From 1979 to 2007, the full-time employment rate of women aged 26-65 increased by 12%, and the number of hours women worked nearly doubled from 1979 to 2007. It is estimated that the increase in women’s work during this time increased America’s GDP by 11%, or $1.7 trillion. This is comparable to annual spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, combined.14 Though women are working more and contributing to GDP growth, their wages have not properly reflected it. Men make more than women in every industry, and in 2018 women earned 82 cents for every dollar men made (with significant disparities between wages of white women and women of color).15
In contrast, the CEO’s of the top 350 US firms have seen explosive salary growth. A study of this group saw a 997% increase in the CEO’s salaries since 1978.16 The vast majority of Fortune 500 companies are managed by men; just 5% of these companies’ CEOs are women.17 Further, women are vastly underrepresented in Wall Street’s leadership. Some of America’s largest investment banks such as Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Citi have 87%, 78% and 72% male representation in executive leadership, respectively.18 In 2014, just 16% of the top 1% of earners were women. These statistics reflect a larger trend that men are the majority of top earners despite women making up an almost equal share of the formal working force. Furthermore, these statistics do not reflect unpaid and household labor which is often taken care of by women. As Page and Gilens note, wealth is allocated among Americans even more inequitably than incomes are. In 2013, 20% of America’s wealth belonged to just 1% of the population. For every dollar a man owns, a woman owns 32 cents.19 Like the gender wage gap, the gender wealth gap exists in connection with racial disparities; women of color own less wealth than the average white woman. Additionally, women have less savings for retirement than men. The median retirement savings for men is $123,000, while it is just $42,000 for women.20
These stark economic and financial differences between men and women put America on a path towards misrepresentation in politics. Since a small number of Americans own an extraordinary amount of wealth, their donations can- and often do- have significant effects on our political system. For example, in 2012 “just one-tenth of one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans provided almost half of all the money spent in federal elections.”21 This means that a few wealthy donors can outweigh the power of thousands of constituents. This small group of highly influential donors is not representative of America in many respects, including gender. In 2016, just 158 families contributed nearly half of all early money donations to presidential candidates, totaling $179 million.22 In the 2018 election cycle, half of the top ten political donors were men, and the other half were heterosexual spousal couples (meaning that 25% of these donations were associated with a female donor). These top ten donors contributed over $447 million.23 The weight of these donations has a considerable impact on competitive races.
This influence of money in politics is magnified in the early stages of candidacy, where “early money” is essential to the survival of a campaign. Early money helps boost name recognition in the media and building the foundation of a campaign’s communications and network. Consequently, Americans who have exorbitant amounts of money to donate to campaigns early on can essentially determine which candidates will make it to the ballot. Many political scientists agree that campaign funding is not an end-all-be-all for determining the winner for any given race, however campaigns which spend more often come out as winners on election night. This is especially true for candidates running for seats in the House of Representatives, where in an average election year 90% of winning candidates were also the candidates who spent the most.24
The Gender Donor Gap
As discussed, there are gendered gaps in both income and wealth in America. Beyond these disparities, there is also a gap between the number of men and women who donate to campaigns, and the amounts which they contribute. To examine this gap, it is important to look at who is donating, and through what means. When the primary field for 2020 Democrats was filled with fifteen candidates, only four of them (Marianne Williamson, Kamala Harris, Julián Castro and Elizabeth Warren) took in 50% or more of their donations come from female donors. While this data reflects that most 2020 Democratic campaigns are funded primarily by male donors, the numbers are an improvement from previous presidential election years. Before 2020, there had only been two candidates from any party which had more female donors than male; Dennis Kucinich (2004) and Hillary Clinton (2008 and 2016).25 Taryn Rosenkrantz, founder at New Blue Digital Strategies political consulting firm, notes that for the last 20 years women have been trailing behind men in campaign contributions and that trend is likely true “for the last 100 [years], or however long we've been tracking financial contributions.”26 Data from the Center for Responsive politics reflects this as well. In 2018, 37% of donations amounting to $200 or more came from women, compared to 62% from men- a 25 percentage point difference. In 2016 there was also a 25-percentage point difference between the number of male and female donors, which followed a 41-percentage point difference in 2014.27 In prior years, the gender donor gap has been even wider. In addition to making fewer campaign donations than men, women also tend to donate smaller amounts of money. Kira Sanbonmatsu, who is a senior scholar at the Rutgers University Center for American Women and Politics notes that “Men giving money to politics tend to give more money than women.”28 She attributes this to the historic gender imbalance of campaign contributions, which has created a pattern of traditional giving for men which has not been the same for women.
How Money Affects Female Candidacy
Studies have shown that in most races, women and men raise comparable campaign funds. However, in certain types of races, women receive fewer campaign donations. Traditionally, serious candidates running in competitive races bring in more money than candidates running in less competitive stakes. In 2018, donor data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) showed that there was a $500,000 funding gap in competitive district races between male and female democratic candidates running for seats in the House.29 Further, women running in competitive races, where a donation to their campaign stands to make a considerable impact on the race, often raise less than men who are extremely unlikely to win their races. For example, Andrew Janz ran as a Democrat against incumbent Republican Devin Nunes in California’s 22nd congressional district, which leans considerably to the right. Janz still raised $8.2 million.30 In another California district, widely supported candidate Young Kim was out fundraised by her male primary opponent 5 times over. Together, female candidates who won their primaries for House races raised $185,000 less than their male counterparts. This is significant because it highlights that when female candidates face a strong challenger, their gender plays a role in the amount of financial support they can expect to receive.
Many female candidates feel that their fundraising strength is in small donations from individual donors. This could be the result of men traditionally standing in better financial positions to self-fund their campaigns or having more connections to big corporations that have large amounts of money to spend which enables them to fund campaigns with larger donations.31 The race between Kara Eastman and Don Bacon for the House seat to represent Omaha and its surrounding suburbs exemplifies this funding dichotomy. When National Public Radio spoke to Eastman in June before the 2018 election, she had filed $783,953 in campaign funds compared to Bacon’s $1.8 million. 44% of Bacon’s funds came from PACs, whereas only 5% of Eastman’s funds came from this means.32 Rashida Tlaib, who ran and won a seat representing Michigan’s 13th District, believes these funding disparities make it so the women have to put in a particular type of effort when fundraising. She said, “We work twice as hard. At some point that may change, but we have to work twice as hard,” in an interview with the New York Times.33 Moreover, equal amounts of fundraising do not always amount to the same expectations of success. In some cases, women see less of a connection between the amount of money they raise and the success of their campaigns, compared to men.34 This may be attributed to female candidates needing togo above and beyond in order to prove their candidacy is viable.
While many female candidates running for election in 2018 were able to ride a wave of Democratic female donors who took part in “rage giving” in response to Donald Trump’s election, data shows that certain PACs are actually one of the greatest funding assets for some female candidates.35 Groups like Emily’s List focus exclusively on funding pro-choice democratic women and have been crucial in supporting these campaigns in recent years. In competitive 2018 House races, money from PACs composed less than 10% of campaign funds for both male and female democratic candidates. Interestingly, while men had comparatively higher proportions of their funding from individual and out of state donors compared to women, female candidates received a higher proportion of their campaign funding from PACs.36 While this may reflect male candidates receiving a significantly larger amount of funding from individual and out-of-state donors in total, it stands to show that PACs are giving female democratic candidates a boost. Emily’s list gave over $10 million directly to its endorsed candidates in 2018, and more than $37 million to its Super PAC, “Women Vote!”37 The ability of PACs to help women raise funds and win in the long term is still in question. One study found that between 1980 and 2010, men and women raised the same amount of money from PACs.38 More recent receipts from PACs suggest a clear divide between Republican and Democratic women which is due toPACs which solely support Democratic women outnumbering those for Republican women by far. Without this early support, Republican women face an uphill battle to establish themselves as serious contenders.
In addition to ideology as a differentiating factor, race plays a key role in how much women have been able to raise. This is easily noted when examining the amount of money candidates raised in general elections for House seats in 2018. The average amount raised by white female candidates was $2,017,768, forHispanic female candidates it was $1,363,349 and for Black/African American female candidates it was $933,917.39 Black women face significant hardships in raising money from large individual donors in particular, even when controlled for variation in other factors. Further Black women raised 55% less than white women in these races on average. This data reflects a troubling trend within gendered campaign financing disparities. Even though 2018 saw an increase in women running, and enthusiasm for their political success, financial support for Black women was not on par with women of other races. This is likely related to the racial disparities within the gender wage and income gaps, among other societal norms and structures.
The Role of Institutions, Structures and Norms
Obstacles to Raising Funds
Many women report that campaign fundraising serves as a deterrent when contemplating a run for public office. In an environment where women need to be asked to run for office an average of seven times before they seriously consider it, the seemingly ominous task of fundraising can be a real roadblock.40 Women tend to perceive that it is more difficult for female candidates than for male candidates to raise money. When asked about this disparity in a survey, women said that men have more established networks which benefit their fundraising efforts, and that women find it more uncomfortable to ask for money.41 Ultimately, women’s doubts about fundraising can dissuade them from running.
Another prevailing circumstance that can make fundraising harder for female candidates is the incumbency advantage. The rate of success for candidates running for re-election is 80% in the Senate and upwards of 97% in the House of Representatives.42 Incumbent politicians have an immense advantage over challengers; they have built networks that can help them boost fundraising and they can represent their office at events in the district like ribbon-cuttings and town hall meetings. Incumbents can send out mail without paying for its distribution by using something called the franking privilege. This allows them to spend less money than a challenger to boost name recognition or ask for campaign donations. In 2018, the average difference in campaign receipts between an incumbent and a challenger in a senate race was $13,458,917, and $1,432,186 for a House race. In the same year 61% of women running for Senate seats and 55% of women running for House seats ran against incumbents.43 In order to increase the level of female representation in government, women will necessarily need to run against incumbent male politicians and win (unless female candidates were to wait for the currently occupied seats to become vacant- a process which would surely take an exorbitant amount of time). Representative Cheri Bustos, the first woman to represent her district in Congress said, “There's not that many open seats that come around, if you're going to wait for an open seat, you're going to wait."44 Since American political life has been dominated by men since the formation of our government, this incumbency advantage is to the detriment of female politicians. Beating an incumbent is difficult on its own and presents an uphill battle for any challenger. Studies have shown that big donors often hold off on their contributions until a candidate reaches a certain threshold, a tendency that can impact female candidates disproportionately.45 In these conditions, women have to jump through hoops to prove that their candidacy is up for the fight and worthy of campaign investments.
Expansion of the Gender Donor Gap
In 2014, the Supreme Court delivered a key ruling which eliminated restrictions on a means of political donorship which has historically been dominated by ultra-wealthy men. In McCutcheon v. FEC, Alabama resident Shaun McCutcheon wished to donate to multiple committees and candidates, making each donation within the limit for each committee or candidate. However, the sum of his donations would have breached the aggregate limit for an individual donor. McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee sued the FEC on grounds that the election finance rules limited first amendment rights. The district court ruled in favor of the FEC, expressing that the limit was justified because it was reasonable and served to minimize corruption or the appearance of it.46 However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of McCutcheon on the basis that combating corruption is not reason enough to unnecessarily limit an individual’s freedom of speech.47 The conclusion of this case means that there is no limit on the number of candidates, committees or PACs that an individual can give to. In the 2012 election cycle, 644 donors reached the aggregate limit of $117,000 that McCutcheon v FEC would eventually eliminate.48 Of them, 78% were men, and 22% women. This gender donor gap is much higher than the gap for donors who contribute in smaller amounts. This suggests that the donor gap between men and women is increased as campaign finance restrictions are relaxed. As the Supreme Court’s decisions reflect, political contributions are a vehicle for expressing one’s freedom of speech. If the weight of your political contributions reflects how well your voice is represented in our government, women are more vulnerable to being silenced as our laws allow more money in politics.
Opportunities for Change
To address the lack of women in office, there are many organizations which aim to inspire political ambition in young women. Groups like Ignite National, She Should Run and Emerge America are dedicated to closing the gap in female representation, and have specific campaign fundraising programming for their members. Ignite National, which works with women and girls from middle school through college, starts teaching about this topic early on. At Ignite’s Young Women Run events, the organization's financial literacy partner JP Morgan Chase introduces best practices in personal budgeting through their “Women on the Move” program. Ignite also offers a workshop called “Campaign fundraising essentials: Show me the money” which aims to mitigate the fear of asking for political contributions and inspire confidence in young women considering making a bid for office.49 The organization also hosts online webinars like “Harness the power of digital fundraising and small-dollar donors.” For women who have decided they will run for office, Emerge America offers a “Boot Camp” program which includes fundraising training specifically for first time democratic female candidates.50 Admission into the program also gives candidates access to donor networks and consultants. These organizations forge connections between female candidates and donors that can lessen some of the perceptions women have about fundraising challenges. The strength of this financial literacy programming has benefitted hundreds of women who now serve in various levels of government.
Addressing Inequities at the Root
The gender pay gap and gender wealth gap are contributing factors to the gender donor gap. If women had the same amount of money to give to campaigns, their voice could be more accurately represented in which candidates make it on the ballot, become elected, and ultimately voice their concerns and inform policy. If women had the same wealth as men, they would stand in better positions to self-fund their campaigns or at least supplement their campaign funding in this way. Further, women would stand on equal ground to make donations at the same rate and of the same weight as male donors. The gender wage gaps varied by race and are restricted by legislation differently in different jurisdictions across the nation. While the average woman earns 88% ofwhat the average man makes in New York and California, women in Wyoming and Louisiana can expect to earn 70% of what their male counterparts earn.51 There are several opportunities to pass federal legislation to close these gaps for all American women. The Paycheck Fairness Act can update and strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by eliminating loopholes and creating procedures to ensure the legislation can be properly enforced.52 The Pay Equity for All Act can break the cycle of unequal pay by prohibiting “employers from seeking salary history during the hiring process.”53 And the Fair Pay Act “amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to prohibit discrimination in the payment of wages on account of sex, race, or national origin.”54 Each of these acts would go a long way in closing the racial wage gap and gender wage gap. Over the long term, the impacts of these acts would have the potential to minimize wealth gaps across our nation as well. Addressing these foundational disparities would be an impetus for creating equal opportunity for Americans who wish to run for office or make donations to support those who advocate for policies they favor.
Public Campaign Funding
Creating accessible public campaign funds for candidates benefits female candidates in a multitude of ways. Studies have shown that the availability of public campaign funds affect how women think about running for office. Women are more likely than men “to believe that candidacy would be more appealing if campaigns were publicly financed.”55 A look at races in Maine and Nevada has shown that women were more likely than men to accept public funding when offered. And in both France and Sweden, the introduction of public funding for campaigns was followed by an increase of women in government.56 In many races, women are able to raise the same amount of money as men, however the idea of fundraising presents an impediment to launching a campaign. With the option of public funding, both the sway of ultra-wealthy donors and the cultural barriers for women making the ask for funds can be minimized.
A Closer Look: Massachusetts
There is also an opportunity for change to spur on the state level. Getting women the connections to donors they need to run on state and local levels can serve them later on should they consider running for federal office. There are two bills which have been introduced in the current session of the Massachusetts State General Court which stand to address the disparities reflected in this paper. “An Act Supporting Parents Running for Public Office” (S.408/H.639) would amend current state level campaign finance laws to allow for childcare to be covered by campaign funds.57 More specifically, this legislation would apply to any candidate who is burdened by childcare expenses as a result of his or her run for office. Proponents of the act recognize it as an opportunity to remove an obstacle for all working parents who seek public office. The act would likely help mothers of young children in particular, as women are more likely to spend more time carrying out childcare tasks. According to a 2018 ruling from the FEC, this sort of campaign financing is permissible but not every state has passed legislation which ensures that the federal ruling does not conflict with local policy. Fourteen states have rectified the difference between state and federal law, including Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Utah, Texas and Wisconsin. Legislation like this is essential in understanding the modern and practical barriers women face in balancing campaign fundraising and personal life.
A second Massachusetts bill, entitled “An Act to ensure gender parity on public boards and commissions,” seeks to directly address the issue of unrepresentative leadership.58 This act specifically focuses on taxpayer funded public boards and commissions whose members are selected by appointment. According to the language of the act, each of these boards must have at least 50% female representation among its members. The impetus of the bill comes from the incongruity between the demographics of the state’s population at large and the residents who are appointed to public office to serve them. The legislation also calls for the composition of these boards and commissions to “reflect the percentage of racial and ethnic minorities in the general population” when applicable.59 While not directly related to the influence of money in politics, this legislation proposes the mandated gender parity in certain leadership bodies. Approaches like this act could address the lack of female representation independently from campaign finance reform.
Recent elections have shaped our governing bodies to be more representative of our population than ever before, but we are still from reaching gender parity. The nature of economic shifts in America have produced a troubling degree of wealth inequality and reliance on underpaid labor. These shifts have disproportionately impacted the amount of wealth women own and the money they earn. These gendered disparities exist alongside racial wealth disparities, putting women of color in the worst position to build economic security. Further, this legacy has created conditions in which men make up the majority of ultra-wealthy American who donate great sums of money, and do so more often than women. If we believe that the size of an individual’s political contribution is reflected in the extent to which their voice is heard in our government, this means that women’s voices are more easily drowned out.
Overall, women raise campaign money at a similar rate as male candidates. However, disparities are more likely to occur when women run in competitive races. It is likely that women must work harder to demonstrate that their candidacy is viable and worthy ofinvestment in these races. Disparities in campaign funding between men and women are most significant for Black/African American candidates. Democratic women tend to fare better than Republicans, as a substantial network of PACs which aims to aid this demographic in particular give a significant boost. Social norms and existing political structures present an environment that disadvantages female candidates, such as the incumbency advantage, the gender wage gap, and perceptions of fundraising difficulty for female candidates.
Each of these differentials indicate that our notion of a government “for the people, by the people and of the people” is not supported by current economic and social conditions. There are several opportunities to amend the disjunction. One such opportunity is to pass federal legislation that closes pay gaps that disenfranchise Americans based on their gender and racial identities. Another is to reinstate campaign finance laws which limit the aggregate amount of funds for individual donors. Creating public campaign funding and supporting programs that build confidence in the fundraising potential for female candidates are also impactful. Adjusting our electoral conditions to ensure that each voice carries equal weight will bring us close to a more perfect union.
AAUW. (n.d.). Gender Pay Gap Wyoming. https://www.aauw.org/aauw_check/pdf_download/show_pdf.php?file=Gender_Pay_Gap_Wyoming
AAUW. (n.d.) The Gender Pay Gap. https://www.aauw.org/issues/equity/pay-gap/
Appelbaum, E., Boushey, H., & Schmitt, J. (n.d.). The Economic Importance of Women’s Rising Hours of Work. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WomensRisingWorkv2.pdf.
CAWP. (2015, June 12). Women in Elective Office 2020. https://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-elective-office-2020
Caygle, H. (2018, March 25). Challenge for female candidates: 'It's hard to beat an incumbent, period'. Politico. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/25/female-candidates-midterms-incumbents-women-rule-482341.
Center for Responsive Politics. (2018). Donor Demographics. https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donordemographics.php
Center for Responsive Politics. (n.d.). Top Individual Contributors: All Federal Contributions. OpenSecrets. https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php.
Cigane, L., & Ohman, M. (2014). Political Finance and Gender Equality. International Foundation for Electoral Systems. https://www.ndi.org/sites/default/files/political_finance_gender_equality.pdf.
Connolly, Mike and Meschino, Joan. (2019). H.639. An Act Supporting Parents Running for Public Office. Bill H.639. The 191st General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H639.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and Leadership Style: A Meta-Analysis. The University of Connecticut. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1010&context=chip_docs
Emily’s list. (2018). By the Numbers: Emily’s List + the 2018 Midterms. https://emilyslist.org/news/entry/by-the-numbers-emilys-list-the-2018-midterms.
Equitable Growth. (2018). Factsheet: Gender wage inequality in the United States and what to do about it. https://equitablegrowth.org/factsheet-gender-wage-inequality-in-the-united-states-and-what-to-do-about-it/
Gilens, M., & Page, B. (2017).Democracy in America?. University of Chicago Press.
Haddad, Patricia. (2019). “An Act to Ensure Gender Parity on Public Boards and Commissions.” Bill H.2711. malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H2711.
Haley, G. Bryner, Sarah. (n.d.). Race, Gender, and Money in Politics: Campaign Finance and Federal Candidates in the 2018 Midterms. https://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/US-2050-Race-Gender-and-Money-in-Politics-Campaign-Finance-and-Federal-Candidates-in-the-2018-Midterms.pdf
Hansen, C. (2018). 116th Congress by Party, Race, Gender, and Religion. US News and World Report. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/slideshows/116th-congress-by-party-race-gender-and-religion
Horowitz, J., Igielnik, R. & Parker, K. (2018). How Americans View Women Leaders in Politics and Business. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/09/20/women-and-leadership-2018/
Congress.gov. (2015). H.R.1787—114th Congress (2015-2016): Fair Pay Act of 2015. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1787
Congress.gov. (2019). H.R.7—116th Congress (2019-2020): Paycheck Fairness Act. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7/text
IGNITE National. (n.d.). Young Women Run New York: Sessions. https://www.ignitenational.org/_young_women_run_ny_sessions
Inequality.org. (n.d.). Gender Economic Inequality. https://inequality.org/gender-inequality/#gender-income-gaps.
Influence Watch (n.d.). Emerge America. https://www.influencewatch.org/political-party/emerge-america/
Justia Law. (n.d.). McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 572 U.S. 185 (2014). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/185/
Koerth, Maggie. (n.d.). How Money Affects Elections. FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/.
Kurtzleben, Danielle. (2019, November 26). Here Are The Presidential Candidates Women Have Been Donating To. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2019/11/26/764179752/heres-which-presidential-candidates-women-have-been-donating-to.
Lincoln, A. Gettysburg Address. (n.d.). Text & Context. Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Gettysburg-Address
Marek, Keirsten. (2018). WPI Study: Rage Giving is Driven by Progressive Women Donors. Women’s Philanthropy Institute. https://philanthropywomen.org/research/wpi-study-rage-giving-driven-progressive-women-donors/
McCulloch, Heather. Closing the Women’s Wealth Gap. Women’s Wealth Gap. https://womenswealthgap.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Closing-the-Womens-Wealth-Gap-Report-Jan2017.pdf
Miller, Kevin., & Vagins, Deborah. (2018). The Simple Truth. AAUW. https://www.aauw.org/app/uploads/2020/02/AAUW-2018-SimpleTruth-nsa.pdf.
Moe, Sara. Women, Men, and Political Ambition: Why Don’t Women Think They Can Run?. Global Strategy Group. https://www.globalstrategygroup.com/2016/03/political-ambition-gender-gap/.
Muntaner, C., & Ng, E. (2018). The effect of women in government on population health_ An ecological analysis among Canadian provinces, 1976–2009. Elsevier Enhanced Reader. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2018.08.003
National Council for Research on Women. (2014). Money in Politics With a Gender Lens. https://n2r4h9b5.stackpathcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/moneyinpoliticswithagenderlens_0.pdf.
Norton, & Holmes, E. (2019, March 25). All Info - H.R.1864 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Pay Equity for All Act of 2019. Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1864/all-info
Overby, Peter. (2018). There’s A $500,000 Gender Gap When It Comes To Campaign Fundraising. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2018/09/26/651185105/theres-a-500-000-gender-gap-when-it-comes-to-campaign-fundraising
Oyez. (n.d.). McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-536
Sanbonmatsu, K. (n.d.) Money and Women Candidates. Political Parity: A Program of Hunt Alternatives. Parity-Research-Women-Money.pdf.
Weber, D. (2014). McCutcheon and the Gender Divide. Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/04/mccutcheon-and-the-gender-divide/
Zernike, Kate. (2018). Female Candidates Break Barriers, Except When It Comes to Money. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/us/politics/women-campaign-fundraising.html
1.) CAWP. (2015, June 12). Women in Elective Office 2020. https://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-elective-office-2020, paragraph 2
2.) Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and Leadership Style: A Meta-Analysis. The Univ of Connecticut. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1010&context=chip_docs, Page 233.
3.) Muntaner, C., & Ng, E. (2018). The effect of women in government on population health_ An ecological analysis among Canadian provinces, 1976–2009 | Elsevier Enhanced Reader. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2018.08.003
4.) Horowitz, J., Igielnik, R. & Parker, K. (2018). How Americans View Women Leaders in Politics and Business. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/09/20/women-and-leadership-2018/, paragraph 1
5.) CAWP, Women in Elective Office 2020, paragraph 2
6.) Haley, G. Bryner, Sarah. (n.d.). Race, Gender, and Money in Politics: Campaign Finance and Federal Candidates in the 2018 Midterms. https://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/US-2050-Race-Gender-and-Money-in-Politics-Campaign-Finance-and-Federal-Candidates-in-the-2018-Midterms.pdf, page 3
7.) Hansen, C. (2018). 116th Congress by Party, Race, Gender, and Religion. US News and World Report. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/slideshows/116th-congress-by-party-race-gender-and-religion, slide 3
8.) Lincoln, A. Gettysburg Address. (n.d.). Text & Context | Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Gettysburg-Address, paragraph 3
9.) Gilens, M., & Page, B. (2017).Democracy in America?. Univ of Chicago Press, page 5.
10.) Gilens, M., & Page, B. Democracy in America. page 29.
11.) AAUW. (n.d.). Gender Pay Gap Wyoming. https://www.aauw.org/aauw_check/pdf_download/show_pdf.php?file=Gender_Pay_Gap_Wyoming, page 1
12.) Equitable Growth. (2018). Factsheet: Gender wage inequality in the United States and what to do about it. https://equitablegrowth.org/factsheet-gender-wage-inequality-in-the-united-states-and-what-to-do-about-it/, paragraph 6
13.) Inequality.org. (n.d.). Gender Economic Inequality. https://inequality.org/gender-inequality/#gender-income-gaps, graph 1
14.) Appelbaum, E., Boushey, H., & Schmitt, J. (n.d.). The Economic Importance of Women’s Rising Hours of Work. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WomensRisingWorkv2.pdf, p.6
15.) AAUW. (n.d.) The Gender Pay Gap. https://www.aauw.org/issues/equity/pay-gap/. Paragraph 1
16.) Gilens, M., & Page, B. Democracy in America. page 31.
17.) Inequality.org, Gender Economic Inequality, paragraph 2
18.) Inequality.org, Gender Economic Inequality, paragraph 3
19.) McCulloch, Heather. Closing the Women’s Wealth Gap. womenswealthgap.org. https://womenswealthgap.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Closing-the-Womens-Wealth-Gap-Report-Jan2017.pdf, page 3.
20.) Inequality.org, Gender Economic Inequality, paragraph 14
21.) Gilens, M., & Page, B. Democracy in America. page 7.
22.) Gilens, M., & Page, B. Democracy in America. page 105.
23.) Center for Responsive Politics. (n.d.). Top Individual Contributors: All Federal Contributions. OpenSecrets. https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php, table 1
24.) Koerth, Maggie. (n.d.). How Money Affects Elections. FiveThirtyEight. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/, paragraph 4
25.) Kurtzleben, Danielle. (2019, November 26). Here Are The Presidential Candidates Women Have Been Donating To. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2019/11/26/764179752/heres-which-presidential-candidates-women-have-been-donating-to, paragraph 10
26.) Overby, Peter. (2018). There’s A $500,000 Gender Gap When It Comes To Campaign Fundraising: NPR. https://www.npr.org/2018/09/26/651185105/theres-a-500-000-gender-gap-when-it-comes-to-campaign-fundraising, paragraph 8
27.) Center for Responsive Politics. (2018). Donor Demographics. https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donordemographics.php, table 2
28.) Overby, Peter. Here Are The Presidential Candidates Women Have Been Donating To, paragraph 10
29.) Overby, Peter. Here Are The Presidential Candidates Women Have Been Donating To
30.) Zernike, Kate. (2018). Female Candidates Break Barriers, Except When It Comes to Money. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/us/politics/women-campaign-fundraising.html, paragraph 20
31.) Haley, G. Bryner, Sarah. Race, Gender, and Money in Politics: Campaign Finance and Federal Candidates in the 2018 Midterm, page 15.
32.) Overby, Peter. Here Are The Presidential Candidates Women Have Been Donating To
33.) Zernike, Kate. Female Candidates Break Barriers, Except When It Comes to Money.
34.) National Council for Research on Women. (2014). Money in Politics With a Gender Lens. https://n2r4h9b5.stackpathcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/moneyinpoliticswithagenderlens_0.pdf, page 11
35.) Marek, Keirsten. (2018). WPI Study: Rage Giving is Driven by Progressive Women Donors. Women’s Philanthropy Institute. https://philanthropywomen.org/research/wpi-study-rage-giving-driven-progressive-women-donors/
36.) Overby, Peter. Here Are The Presidential Candidates Women Have Been Donating To, bar chart
37.) Emily’s list. (2018). BY THE NUMBERS: EMILY’S LIST + THE 2018 MIDTERMS. https://emilyslist.org/news/entry/by-the-numbers-emilys-list-the-2018-midterms, paragraph 5
38.) Sanbonmatsu, K. (n.d.) Money and Women Candidates. Political Parity: A Program of Hunt Alternatives. Parity-Research-Women-Money.pdf., page 1.
39.) Appelbaum, E., Boushey, H., & Schmitt, J. The Economic Importance of Women’s Rising Hours of Work, p.18
40.) Moe, Sara. Women, Men, and Political Ambition: Why Don’t Women Think They Can Run?. Global Strategy Group. https://www.globalstrategygroup.com/2016/03/political-ambition-gender-gap/, paragraph 8.
41.) Sanbonmatsu, K., Money and Women Candidates, page 2
42.) Caygle, H. (2018, March 25). Challenge for female candidates: 'It's hard to beat an incumbent, period'. Politico. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/25/female-candidates-midterms-incumbents-women-rule-482341, paragraph 12
43.) Caygle, H. Challenge for female candidates: 'It's hard to beat an incumbent, period', paragraph 13
44.) Caygle, H. Challenge for female candidates: 'It's hard to beat an incumbent, period', paragraph 9
45.) Haley, G. Bryner, Sarah. Race, Gender, and Money in Politics: Campaign Finance and Federal Candidates in the 2018 Midterm, page 6.
46.) Oyez. (n.d.). McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-536
47.) Justia Law. (n.d.). McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 572 U.S. 185. (2014). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/185/
48.) Weber, D. (2014). McCutcheon and the Gender Divide. Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/04/mccutcheon-and-the-gender-divide/, paragraph 2
49.) IGNITE National. (n.d.). Young Women Run New York: Sessions, https://www.ignitenational.org/_young_women_run_ny_sessions
50.) Influence Watch. (n.d.). Emerge America. https://www.influencewatch.org/political-party/emerge-america/
51.) Miller, Kevin., & Vagins, Deborah. (2018). The Simple Truth. AAUW. https://www.aauw.org/app/uploads/2020/02/AAUW-2018-SimpleTruth-nsa.pdf, page 7.
52.) Congress.gov (2019). H.R.7—116th Congress (2019-2020): Paycheck Fairness Act. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7/text
53.) Norton, & Holmes, E. (2019, March 25). All Info - H.R.1864 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Pay Equity for All Act of 2019. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1864/all-info
54.) Congress.gov. (2015). H.R.1787—114th Congress (2015-2016): Fair Pay Act of 2015. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1787
55.) Sanbonmatsu, K., Money and Women Candidates, page 3
56.) Cigane, L., & Ohman, M. (2014). Political Finance and Gender Equality. International Foundation for Electoral Systems. https://www.ndi.org/sites/default/files/political_finance_gender_equality.pdf, page 10.
57.) Connolly, Mike and Meschino, Joan. H.639. An Act Supporting Parents Running for Public Office. Bill H.639, The 191st General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2019, malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H639.
58.) Haddad, Patricia. (2019). “An Act to Ensure Gender Parity on Public Boards and Commissions.” Bill H.2711, 2019, malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H2711.
59.) Haddad, Patricia. “An Act to Ensure Gender Parity on Public Boards and Commissions.”
Suggested Reading from Inquiries Journal
Inquiries Journal provides undergraduate and graduate students around the world a platform for the wide dissemination of academic work over a range of core disciplines.
Representing the work of students from hundreds of institutions around the globe, Inquiries Journal's large database of academic articles is completely free. Learn more | Blog | Submit
Latest in Political Science
What are you looking for?