Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Women Give Dems Big Bucks, Get Little in Return

By Allison Stevens, Women's eNews. Posted April 9, 2008.


Women are making record campaign contributions, so why are campaign agendas still mute on child care, birth control and domestic violence?
womensenewslogo
logo
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

WASHINGTON -- Female supporters of Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are reaching into their pocketbooks in record numbers to donate record amounts.

Women have given Clinton nearly half of the $100 million she has raised from individuals who have given large-dollar contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group in Washington, D.C., that tracks money in politics.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has gotten $43 million from female donors giving more than $200, which represents about 41 percent of the $104 million he has raked in from large-dollar individual donors so far, according to the center.

Those figures represent a huge jump over the past, when women's contributions were less than 30 percent of most candidates' campaign accounts, said Ilana Goldman, president of the Women's Campaign Forum, a group in Washington, D.C., that backs pro-choice female political candidates.

"This election has been so inspiring to so many people, they feel it's worth it to invest their money," Goldman said.

Fewer Republican women have been giving to the campaign of their presumptive nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain. About 9,000 women have given him a total of nearly $13 million, roughly 28 percent of the $46 million he has raised from large-dollar contributors so far.

Whether this heightened activity on the Democratic side represents a permanent increase of female political giving is unclear, Goldman said. "It's too soon to call. I very much hope that people are going to be engaged in a whole new way."

Too Little Bang for the Bucks

But some observers say women aren't getting much bang for their political buck.

Campaign agendas don't adequately reflect the spike in contributions from women, said Carol Hardy-Fanta, director of the Center for Women in Politics and Public Policy at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. She pointed the finger not only at male candidates but also at Clinton, the first woman to mount a serious bid for the White House.

"Given that there's a woman running, this has been a remarkably poor year for women's issues being on the agenda," she said, adding that once women started to be at higher-level positions, she thought campaign agendas would become more gender-sensitive.

Issues of particular concern to women -- such as the lack of affordable child care, limited access to birth control and proposed funding cuts to federal domestic violence programs -- are not discussed much, if at all, on the presidential campaign trail, added Martha Burk, author of the just-released book "Your Money and Your Life: The High Stakes for Women Voters in '08 and Beyond."

"In Obama's case, frankly, he hasn't thought about it with a gender lens," she said.

Clinton has addressed the gender wage gap on the stump but has not highlighted other issues of particular concern to women, said Burk, a Clinton supporter and former adviser to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. "I suspect Clinton ... doesn't want to be accused of being too women-focused, which I find disappointing because women are the majority and will elect the next president of the United States."

Goldman said women should be satisfied because the candidates' top issues -- the faltering economy, the war in Iraq and the soaring cost of health care -- are also of paramount concern to them.

"Candidates are talking about issues that women want to hear about," Goldman said. "Women do feel like that investment is paying off quite well."

b>

But Burk and others say candidates could do more to address women's concerns.

One way to do that would be to hit the pay gap harder when talking about the economy, address the prevalence of breast cancer when talking about health care and talk about threats to laws guaranteeing equal opportunity to girls and women in school sports when talking about education, said Robin Leeds, principal of Winning Strategies, a nonpartisan political consulting firm in Washington, D.C.

"It would be ideal if the money that women raise and contribute were proportional to the level of commitment to a gender-integrated strategy," Leeds said. "Although there has been some progress, we have a long way to go to fully integrate a gender perspective into all aspects of campaigns."

But other observers see rapid progress this cycle.

"We have such a short memory," said Marie Wilson, president of the White House Project, a nonprofit group in New York dedicated to electing a woman to the presidency. "In the last eight years, the word 'woman' didn't even appear in presidential campaigns," she said. "Now, the top issues on the domestic agenda are primary issues for women."

Moreover, she said, female voters are getting more attention than ever this cycle. "I think we're front and center."

Catching Up in Donations

Although women tend to vote in higher numbers than men, they have lagged behind in political giving.

In the 2006 midterm elections, men gave 73 percent of individual hard money contributions to candidates, party committees and political action committees. In the same cycle, men gave 72 percent of contributions of $1,000 or more, a figure that has not changed in a decade, according to the Women's Campaign Forum.

Those figures do not take into account contributions less than $200, which are not recorded by the federal government.

Women are active small-dollar contributors, Burk said. Indeed, they have driven the growth of groups like EMILY's List, now the largest non-union political action committee in the country. The group, which backs pro-choice female Democrats, raised $46 million in the last election cycle, predominantly from women; the average donation was $98.

Women are also active campaign volunteers, but those in-kind contributions also go unrecorded.

And while men give more overall to charities, women also demonstrate an outsized tendency toward philanthropy, giving to nearly two times as many charitable organizations than men and more often leaving bequests to such groups.

But their tendency to link positive social change with charities -- and leave political giving to men may be changing.

From January 2007 through March 20, 2008, more than 38,000 women gave Clinton large-dollar donations totaling nearly $48 million, according to the center. They outnumbered the 33,000 men who gave Clinton $52 million.

For his part, Obama has gotten more than $43 million from about 43,000 female big-money contributors and $61 million from 58,000 men.

Copyright 2008 Women's eNews. All Rights Reserved.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: gender, election08, barack obama, hillary clinton, birth control, domestic violence, child care

Allison Stevens is Washington bureau chief at Women's eNews.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Funny
Posted by: suprmark on Apr 9, 2008 12:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always thought you should give campaign donations to show your support for certain politicians whose politics you agree with, not to pay politicians to support your political view.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

huh
Posted by: 23skidoo on Apr 9, 2008 1:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Strange, but I have not noticed any of these candidates discussing any issues of importance to anyone.

At least not since the hasty departure of Edwards, Paul, Kucinich, Biden, Richardson and Dodd.

Not enough issues for womyn? How about no issues at all! Hitler was more subtle than this trainwreck..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Democrats and Republicans have sold out both men and women, GEESH !
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 9, 2008 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My problem is with this outlook
Posted by: Ambercat on Apr 9, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I won't call it "sexist" thinking exactly, but it certainly is narrow. None of the three issues mentioned are anywhere near my top 20 issues as a woman, and I think all are contained in larger issues, some of which ARE being talked about: the war in Iraq (which guts funding for MANY important domestic programs), the war on science and a woman's right to choose, unfair trade deals. You could break those issues into dozens of micro-issues like this and have a tedious, overly detailed campaign that attempts to appeal to every subgroup but it wouldn't be effective. But I think woman as a whole are concerned with the larger issues more than, say, domestic violence. Not to denigrate it, but I've never heard any woman of my acquaintance mention it as a key campaign issue. Instead, they are talking about Iraq, about jobs, about health care, about foreclosures, about education — pretty much the same things men are talking about. It's time we got beyond thinking that there is a package of "women's issues" candidates need to be addressing. It demeans us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Article Provoked a Few Thoughts
Posted by: no1kstate on Apr 9, 2008 2:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel certain to have heard Obama talk about childcare . . . but I could be confusing Audacity of Hope for his stump speeches. But at any rate, I'm not sure I agree with the notion that Obama has considered any of today's pressing issues from a "gendered" lens.

Here's my second thought - for all the brouhaha from middle-aged white feminists and Clinton's playing the "gender" card, you'd think she'd be a lot better on women's issues. I'm not seeking to engage in a conversation on the rightness or wrongness of playing the "gender" card, but just comment that aside from her gender, Clinton hasn't been much of a "women's" candidate. Maybe she has to walk the same line that Obama has to walk when it comes to race - but I doubt it. Issues pertaining to women are much easier to talk about publicly than issues pertaining to people of color - that I have no doubts about.

So, it leaves me to wonder why she isn't better publically on these issues and if middle-aged white feminists are simply engaged in identity-politics. I'm not saying they're wrong if their support for Clinton comes down to identity politics, just that they can't then become so outraged about people of color, and particularly women of color, who support Obama.

Again, I'm not looking to start or provoke an argument, just trying to gain a better understanding of political realities concerning issues of race and gender.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democrats equal opportunity exploiters..!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Apr 9, 2008 4:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats are equal opportunity exploiters I have been a registered Democrat and loyal voter for around 38 years and they've only gotten worse and worse and seem to screw all any who put their faith or hope or belief in them..

The Republicans are of course even worse a bunch of corporate fascists so we're screwed we have no party that really represents the average American and or the poor or blacks or women..!

It's become one big scam they are both the Republicans and Democrats are selling us out completely and in the end both put corporations over the American people every time every chance they get..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Commondreamer
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Apr 9, 2008 7:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The corporatocracy has taken over. Everyone is afraid to address the most basic "familiy values" issues - namely that with two people now working in most families, the old schedule of work which we still live by inexplicably, has no relevance in today's world. We need much more time off to be with our families and much more time off to recover from the greater demands that we have in today's world. No one addresses this crazyness. No one is brave enough.

Women went to work in the outside world, devalued the family work that is so important, and now look at us all - men and women stressed beyond belief with just two weeks for most workers to do everything extra. Weekends are spent doing the other 40 hours of life - cleaning, cooking, preparing, doing taxes, filing, what have you.

America is so far behind Europe it's sad. We do this to ourselves - for no reason except worship of the great capitalist oligarchy that has brought us damaging income inequality, rampant, mindless consumerism over family time, and that fear of being a wimp if you need time off. Americans are wimps. They don't protest anymore...don't speak up anymore....just accept the status quo and can't get out to slay the beast.

With for the most part both parents in families working, there is no excuse for hewing to a schedule like this. If anything the work week for all of us should be 32 hours - 4 days - and there should be 6-8 weeks of vacation too. The French have it right. But Wall Street wants to brainwash you - that it won't work. Sure it's not perfect in France. So, it's not perfect anywhere. My definition of success is less stress...more time, more fun, and most of all time with family.

Women should not bear the brunt of bringing this up. Men also make families don't they? So where are the Dems in this? There is so much work to do...to undo the damage of this fascist plutocracy...that I don't think they are able to address this right now, just as they cannot take on the carried interest issue or other issues very pointedly - why? Because then they'll have to contend with the snake oil that the right with its laughable, dubious family values and anti-tax platforms, brings on whenever real issues about real families are tendered in the press or in the government. We will have to wait...an unbearably long time...and will only be able to address these issues if we elect a democracy again and throw out the plutocracy. We can only hope in November that it happens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

:-)
Posted by: jacksmith on Apr 9, 2008 9:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

p.s. You Might Be An Idiot!

If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...

You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. Naughty Girl. :-)

Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don’t die from. And I could go on, and on...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And you might be an idiot if... Posted by: xconservative
ThinkAbout It
Posted by: jacksmith on Apr 9, 2008 9:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. “Carpe diem” (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see’s a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it’s time America. Do this for your-self, and your children’s future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama’s. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED, OUT GUNNED, and OUT SPENT 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton. YEP! she's a fighter by God!

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON’T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton’s offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama’s place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton’s have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

Sincerely

jacksmith...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just Women?
Posted by: BlackbirdHighway on Apr 10, 2008 3:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not just women. One could argue that NONE of the contributors to ANY of the Democratic politicians have received much support in return. No, TALK about ending the Iraq War doesn't count. We need concrete steps to END the Iraq Occupation.

At the very least they could start by calling it what it actualyl is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women's Campaign Forum Foundation
Posted by: lissysaft on Apr 10, 2008 10:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please note that Ilana Goldman is the President of the Women's Campaign Forum Foundation, a sister foundation of the Women's Campaign Forum, whose mission is to help women build the skills and infrastructure they need to become more effective leaders in public life. The report referenced above, "Vote With Your Purse," is a product of WCF Foundation, not the Women's Campaign Forum. Please also note that women represented less than 30% of contributions to candidates, not that women's contributions were less than 30 percent of most candidates' campaign accounts, as noted in the fourth paragraph of this article. Thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement