Why do women give less to political campaigns than men?

A new analysis finds that only about 30 percent of large donors to political campaigns are women, a figure that has remained relatively steady since the late 1980s.

John Locher/AP Photo
Hillary Rodham Clinton, right, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, speak during the CNN Democratic presidential debate Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2015, in Las Vegas.

A new analysis by The New York Times finds that only about 30 percent of large donors to political campaigns are women. The average contribution from women to the Congressional campaigns of each party fell between 20 and 29 percent, while those for presidential campaigns were slightly higher.  

What’s remarkable is that these are figures that have remained relatively steady since the late 1980s. 

So why is it the case that women generally do not contribute as much money as men to political campaigns? Researchers have historically pointed to the lack of political resources that are available to women, caused by the fact that women sometimes choose careers with less political clout and often have less time to volunteer compared with men, even if they are interested in becoming politically active.  

However, once they do tap into those resources, women have generally become even more politically active than men. Women also typically vote more frequently than men: in 12 elections, from 1964 to 2008, the number of female voters outnumbered male voters. In 2008, approximately 70 million women cast a ballot, while the nearest number of male voters was 60 million. But the historically high number of female voters does not explain their routinely small presence in financing Congressional and presidential campaigns.

“They give out of more empathetic and altruistic reasons than men do,” Debra Mesch, director of the Women’s Philanthropy Institute at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, told The New York Times. “Women may not feel that their money in the political arena is going to fulfill those motivations.”

In 1989, when data on the subject was first collected and studied, a study by researchers at both Boston University and Harvard University suggested that, “When it comes to using family money for political purposes, what might matter … is not simply the level of household income but also control over income.”

In other words, the historic gap between men’s and women’s earnings might not only have implications for their personal lives, but may also limit their ability to wield political influence. Even in 2014, women made just 79 cents to every dollar their male counterparts earned.

This is of special significance in light of the "Citizens United" 2010 decision in which the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of unlimited campaign contributions from organizations. Because of this decision, over time the shape of campaign finance may become increasingly corporate – and male.

While it is still illegal to give money directly to candidates, the Citizens United ruling prompted many corporations to create SuperPACs: direct channels for companies to direct billions of dollars to flow into the campaigns of their choice.

In the 2011-12 election cycle, SuperPACs raised approximately $8.3 billion in total. SuperPAC contributions to political campaigns, of course, would not be categorized as coming from either men or women. Yet the truth is that the money comes from corporations whose leadership is primarily male: of the S&P 500, only 4.4% of their CEOS are women, and women comprise only 19.2% of their board seats.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.