Women's and Men's Campaigns for The U.S. House of Representatives, 1972-1982 A Finance Gap?

1985 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 251-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara C. Burrell

The lack of access to equal financial resources with male candidates has been viewed as a major contributing factor in women's inability to gain public office. Analysis of the campaign finance records for election to the U.S. House of Representatives from 1972 to 1982 shows that although on the average women nominees have never raised or spent as much as men, the size of their disparity is curvilinear over these years, and the correlation between gender and campaign financing is weak. Within candidate status groups (incumbents, challengers, and open races) and within the parties female nominees have not been consistently disadvantaged. Women candidates of both parties even have outdistanced their male counterparts on occasion. Data from the 1980 and 1982 elections also indicate that the structure of male and female fund raising is similar in their support from large contributors, political action committees, and the parties. Further, for women challengers, expenditures have a larger impact on votes than for male challengers. The financial problem for women candidates would appear not to lie at the general election stage of the process. Earlier stages, however, may account for women's relative absence from the elected political elite.

1986 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Theilmann ◽  
Al Wilhite

Black candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives receive substantially lower levels of campaign contributions than non-black candidates. This article investigates the reason for this discrepancy. Are blacks discriminated against or do they receive less money because they are riskier candidates? The results suggest that blacks do receive less money because of their race and that the source of the funds is important. Political action committees and political parties tend to discriminate but individual contributors do not.


Author(s):  
Todd Collins ◽  
Kenneth A. Wink ◽  
James L. Guth ◽  
C. Don Livingston

Recent literature in the religion and politics area has focused on the effect of various measures of religious affiliation on the political behavior of the mass public. Here we add to the evolving literature examining the influence of religious orientation on political elite behavior, focusing on the U.S. House of Representatives. Method. We use data on the religious affiliations of U.S. House members and National Journal scores of foreign policy voting to test the influence of religion on foreign policy ideology from 1998-2003. Our findings indicate that even after controlling for traditional political factors, religious identity influenced foreign policy voting in the House. African-American Protestants, Latter-day Saints (Mormons), and Evangelical Protestants present the most distinctive patterns. Conclusions. From this analysis we see further indications that religion influences legislative behavior in a way that, although intertwined with political partisanship, appears distinct from traditional political factors.


2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (03) ◽  
pp. 503-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca J. Hannagan ◽  
Jamie P. Pimlott ◽  
Levente Littvay

AbstractWomen's political action committees (PACs)—those committees founded by women to raise money for women candidates—have been and will likely continue to be an important part of American electoral politics. In this article, we investigate the impact of EMILY's List, because it is the standard bearer of women's PACs and is commonly cited as crucial to women's electoral success. Empirical studies of EMILY's List impact to date have largely assumed causal inference by using traditional linear models. We use a propensity score–matching model to leverage on causality and find that an EMILY endorsement helps some candidates and hurts others. Our findings set the stage for further and more nuanced investigations of when, where, and how EMILY's List can enhance the likelihood of electoral success for women.


2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 470-473
Author(s):  
Rosalyn Cooperman ◽  
Melody Crowder-Meyer

Although 2018 has been called another “Year of the Woman,” increases in women’s representation that year were party-specific. Historically, women’s organizations fought to expand women’s representation in both parties; however, the fruit of these efforts is currently concentrated among Democrats. Indeed, women contributed funds in record numbers in 2018, but the majority of women donors supported Democratic women candidates (Haley 2018), and liberal women’s political action committees (PACs) played a prominent role in raising those funds.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas R. Jenkins ◽  
Michelangelo Geovanny Landgrave

Despite the public's purported distaste for candidates supported by political action committees (PACs), they remain prominent in American electoral politics, with their total spending exceeding $582 million in the 2020 cycle. Does this dislike of PACs provide an opportunity for candidates to increase their likelihood of (re)election? Using a candidate evaluation survey experiment fielded as part of the 2020 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), we investigate how the decision to accept or reject PAC contributions affects candidates' evaluation and voters' willingness to support their election efforts. We find that voters are more likely to vote for, donate to, and trust candidates that reject PAC contributions. Surprisingly we fail to find evidence of moderation by respondent's party ID. Republican and Democratic voters both penalize candidates that accept PAC money. This study is among the first to study how candidates' campaign financing choices influence their evaluation by voters.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (02) ◽  
pp. 209-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosie Campbell ◽  
Oliver Heath

A growing body of work on candidate traits shows that people with a given social characteristic tend to prefer candidates or leaders who share that characteristic (Campbell and Cowley 2014; Cutler 2002). However, the existing evidence for whether women vote for women is mixed. For example, Kathleen Dolan found that candidate sex was a driver of voting behavior for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1992, but not in 1994 or 1996 (Dolan 1998, 2001, 2004). Eric Smith and Richard Fox used pooled U.S. data from 1988 to 1992 and found that well-educated women were more inclined to support women candidates in House but not Senate races (Smith and Fox 2001), and others have found that women are more likely to vote for women candidates only when they are perceived as being pro-feminist (Plutzer and Zipp 1996). By contrast Fulton (2014) found that women are not more likely to vote for women candidates in the United States, but that male Independents are somewhat less likely to vote for them. Others have found little evidence whatsoever of an association between candidate gender and vote choice (McElroy and Marsh 2010).


1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 299-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary W. Cox ◽  
Eric Magar

A key premise of partisan theories of congressional organization is that majority status confers substantial procedural advantages. In this article, we take advantage of changes in party control of the House and Senate, such as that following the Republicans' historic victory in the midterm elections of 1994, to assess the value of majority status in terms of contributions from access-seeking political action committees (PACs). We estimate that majority status in the House was worth about $36,000 per member in receipts from corporate and trade PACs circa 1994—even controlling for the usual factors cited in the literature as affecting members' ability to raise money (such as committee assignments and voting record). The value of majority status in the Senate is even larger in absolute terms, although smaller in proportion to the total amount of money raised. Our results show that majority status is a valuable asset, one worth considerable collective effort to attain.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document