Women, Money, and Politics

As part of CAWP's Research Inventory on Gender & Politics, this overview focuses on current and past research, with particular emphasis on the latest findings, related to women, money, and politics. This overview captures the state of knowledge to increase understanding of current political realities, support research-based interventions, and generate future research questions and agendas.

Women, Money, and Politics with hub image

An enduring question in women and politics research concerns the role of money. Money does not guarantee election to office. But funds help women run and win, and the costs of campaigns continue to rise. Does the historic legacy of sex discrimination and women’s exclusion from moneyed networks affect their ability to win office? As more women have run and won – particularly since the 1990s – they have benefited from incumbency and its accompanying financial advantages. But with gender gaps in earnings and wealth, as well as disparities at the intersections of race/ethnicity and class, do women today have sufficient means to compete in elections and grow their numbers in office? And what about donors? Campaign contributions tend to be the domain of non-Hispanic white men, overrepresented as contributors compared with their presence in the population. What do these inequalities imply for the exercise of women’s political voices via their donations? Scholars have used a variety of approaches to answer these questions, yielding complex findings. 

Fundraising Studies and Women Candidates

The women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s indirectly fueled women’s candidacies as women gained access to higher education and occupations. While women now outnumber men on college campuses, men’s earnings and occupational attainment still exceed women’s; moreover, racial/ethnic differences intersect with gender to create large intersectional pay and wealth gaps.1 These disparities have profound implications for the ability of women to run for office and for women to fund their preferred candidates. 

Early studies found that being women did not hurt fundraising in general election congressional contests after incumbency and other factors were taken into account. In short, women candidates were not disadvantaged financially solely due to gender.2 Few women were running in the 1980s, however, and women comprised less than five percent of members of Congress.3 In other words, researchers had few women candidates to study. Moreover, candidate gender mattered indirectly due to the advantage of being incumbents: women were at a disadvantage financially because they were less likely to be incumbents.4 This structural feature of the political system – the incumbency advantage – persists today. 

Subsequent research captured the transformative impact of women’s donor networks and political action committees (PACs) created in the 1970s and 1980s.5 For example, EMILY’s List was founded in 1985 to combat bias against women candidates in the Democratic Party; with a new funding mechanism in which donations from across the country were “bundled” together on behalf of endorsed pro-choice women candidates, it helped elect Democratic women to Congress. By funding candidates early in the cycle, EMILY’s List sought to disrupt the self-fulfilling prophecy that adversely impacted women: if women candidates were not perceived as viable, they could not raise funds early in the election cycle, and without early money, women were not perceived as viable.6 In a more recent study of U.S. House contests between 2006 and 2014, Bernard Fraga and Hans Hassell found that party support for women congressional nominees was similar to support for men, although white women Democrats fared better than other groups of women candidates.7 In general, women have not been tapped to lead their parties’ fundraising efforts.8 Women candidates and incumbents seeking reelection can also be disadvantaged in terms of the donations received from other candidates and officeholders.9

Dispelling myths about fundraising difficulties builds donor confidence in women candidates. After all, as Richard A. Seltzer, Jody Newman, and Melissa Voorhees Leighton wrote in the 1990s: "No one likes to back a sure loser, so the message that women have a tougher time winning elections and a tougher time raising money can only make it more difficult for women to achieve credibility and attract supporters, endorsements, and financial contributions."10

Extensive investigations of congressional fundraising show that women and men can raise similar amounts in similar races with women even outperforming men in some cases.11 A range of women’s PACs and donor networks including Electing Women Alliance (EWA) and Higher Heights for America provide women candidates with essential resources.12 These efforts remain essential given the importance of early fundraising to perceptions of viability and candidates’ likelihood of staying in a race.13

The fundraising success of women congressional candidates – particularly Democratic women and general election races – is only one aspect of the landscape. Other studies further illuminate party differences in fundraising; fundraising for other offices (beyond Congress); the process of fundraising; and candidates’ fundraising experiences at the intersections of gender with race/ethnicity and class. Studies that solely examine campaign fundraising receipts are unable to discern if it is harder for women than men to yield the same amounts of money. And studies of fundraising totals are unlikely to detect women who were deterred from running due to financial reasons because those women simply are not in the data. In short, similar levels of campaign receipts in similar types of races may not be the complete story. 

Dedicated financial streams for Republican women candidates are in short supply and less well known than those on the Democratic side of the aisle.14 Moreover, conservative organizations such as the Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List that oppose pro-choice candidates fund both women and men. In their study of U.S. House primary elections across the two parties, Karin Kitchens and Michele L. Swers found that it was harder for Republican women to raise money than their men counterparts.15 Some studies also reveal that women of color congressional candidates raise less than other candidates.16

By definition, the existence of dedicated women’s donor networks indicates that women and men raise money differently. Moreover, the option to finance one’s own campaign is simply less available to candidates who are not non-Hispanic white men. A study of congressional candidates spanning several decades through 2022 found race and gender differences in the ability to self-fund, reflecting structural inequalities in wealth that favor white men candidates.17 CAWP’s Women, Money, and Politics research on both congressional and state elections finds that men – and especially Republican men – are usually more likely to fund their own campaigns.18 Without the same ability to self-finance, women have fewer options than men for putting together the needed resources for a competitive campaign. With more candidates self-financing their campaigns today, alongside persistent pay and wealth inequalities, these structural features of U.S. candidate emergence and candidate finance are likely to continue.19 These dynamics reveal that gender, race/ethnicity, and class can impact politics and representation directly and indirectly. 

In an extensive study of state legislative candidates running as incumbents in woman vs. man general election contests from 1990 to 2010, Michael Barber, Daniel M. Butler, and Jessica Preece found similarities in how much women and men candidates raised; however, men candidates received larger amounts than women candidates from men donors.20 The authors noted that this discrepancy in how much more men are willing to donate to men candidates buttresses studies that use different research methods: surveys and interviews with successful women – women who won election to state legislatures and Congress – reveal that many women believe it is harder for women than men to raise money.21

One methodological challenge to studying money and politics is what we do not observe: which women did not run because they lacked sufficient financial support to mount an effective campaign? Many women perceive obstacles in the form of unequal access to moneyed networks, more effort needed to yield the same results as men, and racial/ethnic challenges to fundraising.22 Cultural norms and stereotypes can also affect the money race, as is discussed below.

Statewide executive races for offices such as governor are usually very competitive and more expensive than state legislative contests, meaning that sufficient financing – and perceptions of candidates’ fundraising prowess – can especially impact women’s entry and success at this level.23 Women gubernatorial candidates may not be seen as viable in states without a history of women governors and/or racially/ethnically diverse governors. Whereas women are less likely than men to self-finance their campaigns, this is particularly the case for women seeking the governor’s mansion from historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. And CAWP’s research on gubernatorial contests finds that Republican women candidates usually fare worse in fundraising than Democratic women candidates.24

To the extent that men incumbents are outraising women incumbents because their races are more expensive, men may have more influence within the legislatures than women; fundraising is often connected to both informal and formal influence within the legislatures, and may help legislators seek higher offices as well.25 And finally, some studies reveal that the money raised does not always affect vote share the same way for women and men, indicating potential disadvantages for women candidates in the impact of their campaign dollars.26 Paul Herrnson, Charles Hunt, and Jaclyn Kettler found that women and men congressional candidates allocate their campaign funds in similar ways; however, they find that women running as challengers must spend more than men in order to attract the same proportion of votes.27

Experimental Research

Scholars are turning to survey experiments about hypothetical candidates to determine if people’s stereotypes about politicians indirectly shape the fundraising process. Experimental designs can surreptitiously measure potential donors’ reactions to different types of candidates, avoiding some of the methodological limitations of other types of studies. For example, Samantha Koprowski found that candidate race and gender interacted with information about the amount of funds candidates raised and whether or not their donations took the form of small contributions, examining how these different fundraising profiles affected voters’ candidate evaluations.28 One conclusion of this study is that Black candidates – both women and men – were less likely than white candidates to benefit from the positive voter evaluations that accompany raising funds in smaller denominations.

If donors perceive women candidates to be somehow better than or “above” the money race, women candidates may be more constrained in their fundraising practices compared with men. Samantha Koprowski, Amy Benner, and Kira Sanbonmatsu found that women members of Congress – and particularly Democratic women – are perceived to be more likely than men to support reforms to limit the influence of money in politics.29 This association of women with reform could make the fundraising process more difficult if women are more constrained in how they raise money.  

Indeed, one study found that Democratic women candidates attracted less support if they were depicted as having a PAC endorsement than no PAC endorsement.30 Similarly, in an experimental study using fictional candidates who were depicted as receiving PAC money or refusing such funds, Jennifer Dudley and Olivia Neff found that the refusal of PAC funds can improve perceptions that the candidate is more ethical, but the effects depended on both candidate gender and race.31 The authors found that white candidates – and especially white women candidates – were more likely than Black candidates to receive more favorable evaluations when they refused PAC money. 

Together these studies indicate that candidate gender and race/ethnicity affect how fundraising is perceived by potential donors and voters, with complex findings. Gender and racial stereotypes about candidates can affect perceptions of candidate viability and the likelihood politicians will be responsive to their constituents (rather than being responsive to their funders). Raising money signals credibility and support, but where that financial support originates can interact with candidate characteristics in some unexpected ways. For example, in the experimental study about the potential benefits of refusing PAC money, Black candidates did not benefit from that stance; this finding led Dudley and Neff to posit that "accepting PAC funds gives Black candidates, who are less represented in the legislature, an air of legitimacy or value alignment. Therefore, taking PAC funds may not hurt their campaigns to the point that they perform comparably to the PAC-free candidates."32

Thus, different funding streams may mean different things to voters depending on candidate characteristics. 

Women Donors

Income and wealth gaps can impact women donors, hindering their ability to help elect their preferred candidates and access politicians once they win office. Indeed, a landmark study of women’s political participation found that men donated more to politics than women due to gender differences in resources. The authors also found that the impact of resources on political giving was similar for women and men.33

In historic perspective, women today are wielding more power as campaign contributors than in the past. For example, women were half of donors to 2008 presidential candidates — a finding driven by Democratic women donors.34 Most national studies find that men are more likely than women to give to candidates.35

But improvements in the status of women donors is not inevitable; for example, the percentage of women donors to gubernatorial candidates has not risen incrementally over time.36 Women donors are more likely than men to contribute in smaller denominations.37 And the political voices of some women are heard more clearly than others via their campaign contributions, leading to distortions in whose opinions are heard. For example, Anne Baker and Monica Schneider found that women donors’ policy views do not necessarily reflect the views of all women: in an analysis of Republican women, they found that non-donors were more moderate than donors.38 On the other hand, they found overlap in the ideological perspectives of Republican women and men donors. 

The amount contributed is a distinct question from the percentage of contributors who are women. Indeed, one study of giving to presidential candidates found that a gender gap persisted in the amount contributed to presidential candidates even after controlling for donor age, education, and income.39 Studies of recent U.S. elections show that the average donation from women is lower than the average donation from men.40

In CAWP’s comprehensive analysis of the total money contributed to state elections over twenty years (2003-2022), men consistently out-donated women in the total amount contributed.41 Another study using data from 1980 to 2010 found that Black, Latina, and Asian American women were much less likely to contribute to congressional candidates than other groups.42 The total amount of congressional campaign contributions in 2024 by women from historically underrepresented groups was far below other groups.43

Women disproportionately contribute to women candidates.44 These relationships occur within both parties, in congressional elections, state elections, and in both primary and general elections.45 This means that inequalities in the collective economic resources wielded by American women may forestall women’s candidacies. Without sufficient funds, candidates may drop out or refrain from running in the first place.

Norms and cultural practices can complicate women’s fundraising and campaign contributions. For example, personality trait stereotypes link women more than men with honesty.46 Women may be more comfortable in the sphere of charitable than political giving, with women’s charitable giving outpacing their political giving.47 Sanbonmatsu’s study of Black women and Latinas revealed that they perceive the act of charitable giving to be more valued by society than political giving.48

Were women to command more financial resources and cultural norms to shift, women could wield more political voice through their campaign contributions and provide more resources for women candidates. 

Campaign Finance Reform?

Changes to the rules governing campaign finance might also have an impact on the representativeness of U.S. elections. The U.S. campaign finance system relies primarily on private financing of campaigns and the Supreme Court has been largely unwilling to restrict campaign contributions. As a historically underrepresented group, women may benefit from reforms that alter the traditional landscape of campaign finance.  

Certainly, as Elon Musk illustrated in the 2024 election, a small number of billionaires and very wealthy donors can have a disproportionate influence on campaigns. A handful of “megadonors” dominate political giving, and women and people of color are not usually in this group.49

In electoral systems with public financing options for candidates, some research has shown that women candidates are more likely to tap such funds. For example, one study of Arizona and Maine found women running for the state house were more likely than men to accept public financing, although there was not a gender difference in state senate races.50 Because women disproportionately give small dollar amounts and women candidates are more likely than men to raise money in smaller denominations, reforms that empower small donations may elevate women’s political voices and help women candidates.51

Different types of reforms have different implications for women, and subgroups of women. For example, in past campaign finance reform debates, some reform efforts would have hampered the ability of Democratic-affiliated groups such as EMILY’s List to support women candidates. Meanwhile, to the extent that the current funding structure benefits incumbents, women incumbents stand to benefit from the system as it stands. 

Kamala Harris’ Historic Fundraising

The 2024 presidential campaign of Kamala Harris was unusual in its length: her campaign for president began just a few months before Election Day, after President Joe Biden stepped aside and she secured the nomination. Yet Harris made fundraising history. She raised more in a single day and more than any other presidential candidate in U.S. history, mobilizing new and diverse donors.52 Harris’ nomination and fundraising success also revealed the importance of women in the Democratic Party working to raise money behind the scenes.53

Harris’ 2024 campaign shattered a number of myths about women and fundraising. For example, the Democratic Party received internal criticisms in 2022 when Black women candidates such as Cheri Beasley in the 2022 North Carolina U.S. Senate race were narrowly defeated; critics felt that the party lacked confidence in Black women’s statewide candidacies and failed to provide sufficient financial resources.54 Although Harris narrowly lost the presidential election, going forward it will be more difficult for financial gatekeepers to doubt the fundraising prowess of women candidates from diverse backgrounds. 

Suggested Citation: Dittmar, Kelly, Kira Sanbonmatsu, and Paru Shah. 2026. CAWP Research Inventory on Gender & Politics. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

Endnotes 

1 Hegewisch, Ariane, and Cristy Mendoza. 2023. "Gender and Racial Wage Gaps Marginally Improve in 2022 but Pay Equity Still Decades Away." Institute for Women's Policy, September 15. https://iwpr.org/gender-and-racial-wage-gaps-marginally-improve-in-2022-but-pay-equity-still-decades-away/ 

2 Uhlaner, Carole Jean, and Kay Lehman Schlozman. 1986. "Candidate Gender and Congressional Campaign Receipts." Journal of Politics 48 (1): 30–50.

3 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “Congress.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/congress

4 Uhlaner and Schlozman 1986

5 Burrell, Barbara. 1994. A Woman's Place is in the House: Campaigning for Congress in the Feminist Era. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; Crespin, Michael H., and Janna L. Deitz. 2010. “If You Can’t Join ’Em, Beat ’Em: the Gender Gap in Individual Donations to Congressional Candidates.” Political Research Quarterly 63 (3): 581–93. 

6 Malcolm, Ellen C., and Craig Unger. 2017. When Women Win: EMILY's List and the Rise of Women in American Politics. Boston, MA: Mariner Books.

7 Fraga, L. Bernard, and Hans J. G. Hassell. 2021. "Are Minority and Women Candidates Penalized by Party Politics? Race, Gender, and Access to Party Support." Political Research Quarterly 74 (3): 540–55.

8 Cooperman, Rosalyn. 2022. "Supporting Women Candidates: The Role of Parties, Women’s Organizations, and Political Action Committees." In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, ed. Susan J. Carroll, Richard L. Fox, and Kelly Dittmar. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

9 Kanthak, Kristin, and George A. Krause. 2012. The Diversity Paradox: Political Parties, Legislatures, and the Organizational Foundations of Representation in America, 1st edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Kettler, Jaclyn. 2020. “Paying it Forward: Candidate Contributions and Support for Diverse Candidates.” In Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy, eds. Shauna L. Shames, Rachel I. Bernhard, Mirya R. Holman, and Dawn Langan Teele. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 

10 Seltzer, Richard A., Jody Newman, and Melissa Voorhees Leighton. 1997. Sex as a Political Variable: Women as Candidates & Voters in U.S. Elections. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 9.

11 Burrell 1994; Burrell, Barbara. 2014. Gender in Campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). 2024a. “Women, Money, & Politics Watch 2024.” Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/research/cawp-women-money-and-politics-series/money-watch-2024

12 Cooperman 2022

13 Thomsen, Danielle M. 2025. The Money Signal: How Fundraising Matters in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

14 Crowder-Meyer, Melody and Rosalyn Cooperman. 2018. “Can’t Buy Them Love: How Party Culture among Donors Contributes to the Party Gap in Women’s Representation.” The Journal of Politics 80 (4): 1211–24; Cooperman 2022; RepresentWomen. 2020. PACs and Donors: Agents of Change for Women's Representation, June. https://www.representwomen.org/2020_pac_report

15 Kitchens, Karin E., and Michele L. Swers. 2016. "Why Aren't There More Republican Women in Congress? Gender, Partisanship, and Fundraising Support in the 2010 and 2012 Elections." Politics & Gender 12 (4): 648–76.

16 Bryner, Sarah. 2020. Racial and Gender Diversity in the 117th Congress. Open Secrets, Washington, DC. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/gender-and-race-2020?category=; Sorensen, Ashley, and Philip Chen. 2022. "Identity in Campaign Finance and Elections: The Impact of Gender and Race on Money Raised in 2010–2018 U.S. House Elections." Political Research Quarterly 75 (3): 738–53.

17 Plaskon, Savannah, and Danielle Thomsen. 2024. "Self-Rising Candidates: Racial and Gender Disparities in Self-Funding." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

18 Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2023. The Donor Gap: Raising Women’s Political Voices. A CAWP Women, Money, & Politics report. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/research/cawp-women-money-and-politics-series/donor-gap; CAWP 2024a

19 Haner, Joanne. 2024. "Republican Candidates Outpace Democrats in Self-Funding Campaigns." OpenSecrets, February 28. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2024/02/republican-candidates-outpace-democrats-in-self-funding-campaigns/; Plaskon and Thomsen 2024

20 Barber, Michael J., Daniel M. Butler, and Jessica Preece. 2016. "Gender Inequalities in Campaign Finance." Quarterly Journal of Political Science 11 (2): 219–48.

21 Carroll, Susan J., and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2013. More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to the State Legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Dittmar, Kelly, Kira Sanbonmatsu, and Susan J. Carroll. 2018. A Seat at the Table: Congresswomen's Perspectives on Why Their Presence Matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

22 James, Heather. 2022. "There’s No Women’s Mafia: Women’s Donor Groups in State Legislative Elections." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (4): 483–98; Phillips, Christian Dyogi. 2021. Nowhere to Run: Race, Gender, and Immigration in American Elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

23 Windett, Jason. 2014. "Differing Paths to the Top: Gender, Ambition, and Running for Governor." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 35 (4): 287–314.

24 Sanbonmatsu, Kira, Kathleen Rogers, and Claire Gothreau. 2020. The Money Hurdle in the Race for Governor. Individual Contributors, 2000-2018. A CAWP Women, Money, & Politics report. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.  

25 Barber et al. 2016

26 Herrick, Rebekah. 1996. "Is There a Gender Gap in the Value of Campaign Resources?" American Politics Quarterly 24 (1): 68–80; Kitchens and Swers 2016

27 Herrnson, S. Paul, Charles Hunt, and Jaclyn J. Kettler. 2022. "Vive la Différence? Is There a Gender Gap in Campaign Strategy and Spending, and Does It Matter?" Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (4): 463–82.

28 Koprowski, Samantha. N.d. Money Talks: Race and Gender in Public Opinion of Women’s Campaign Financing. Ph.D. Dissertation. Rutgers University. 

29 Koprowski, Samantha, Amy Benner, and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2025. "Agents of Change? Women Candidates and Support for Campaign Finance Reform." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 46 (2): 93–111.

30 Ondercin, L. Heather, and Ciera Dalton. 2023. "Gender Candidate Evaluations and Campaign Donations." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 44 (1): 56–74.

31 Dudley, Jennifer S. K., and Olivia T. Neff. 2025. "The Cost of Political Action Committee Funding: Evidence on Political Action Committee Funding Refusal Across Candidate Race and Gender." The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics 10 (2): 454–80.

32 Dudley and Neff 2025, 472

33 Burns, Nancy, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

34 Magleby, David B., Jay Goodliffe, and Joseph A. Olsen. 2018. Who Donates in Campaigns?: The Importance of Message, Messenger, Medium, and Structure. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 215.

35 Kuriwaki, Shiro, Pia Deshpande, and Thomas Hershewe. 2025. The Cooperative Election Study's Cumulative File and CES Participation File. https://cooperativeelectionstudy.shinyapps.io/ParticipationTrends/; Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2025a. “Who Doesn’t Give: Race, Gender, and Political Contributions in the 2024 Elections.” Working paper, Rutgers University. But see Shames, Shauna L., Sara Morell, Ashley Jardina, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Nancy Burns. 2025. What's Happened to the Gender Gap in Political Activity?: Social Structure, Politics, and Participation in the United States. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

36 Gothreau, Claire, and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2023. "Women and Unequal Voice in Governors’ Races: A Study of Campaign Contributions." Politics, Groups, and Identities 11 (1): 158–68.

37 Bouton, Laurent, Julia Cagé, Edgard Dewitte, and Vincent Pons. 2024. "Small Campaign Donors." Working Paper 30050. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w30050; CAWP 2024a

38 Baker, Anne, and C. Monica Schneider. 2025. "Party Convergence and Divergence among Republican Women." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 46 (3): 248–61.

39 Magleby et al. 2018, 219

40 RepresentWomen 2020; CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). 2024b. “Even Including Small-Dollar Amounts, Men are Outgiving Women; Women Candidates Receive Smaller Average Donations,” October 10. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/news-media/press-releases/even-including-small-dollar-amounts-men-are-outgiving-women-women

41 Sanbonmatsu 2023

42 Grumbach, Jacob M., Alexander Sahn, and Sarah Staszak. 2022. "Gender, Race, and Intersectionality in Campaign Finance." Political Behavior 44 (1): 319–40.

43 CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). 2024c. “Men Vastly Outgiving Women in 2024 Congressional Elections,” September 16. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/news-media/press-releases/men-vastly-outgiving-women-2024-congressional-elections

44 Sanbonmatsu 2023; CAWP 2024a; Thomsen, Danielle, and Michele L. Swers. 2017. "Which Women Can Run? Gender, Partisanship, and Candidate Donor Networks." Political Research Quarterly 70 (2): 449–63.

45 Sanbonmatsu 2023; CAWP 2024a

46 Barnes, Tiffany D., and Emily Beaulieu. 2014. "Gender Stereotypes and Corruption: How Candidates Affect Perceptions of Election Fraud." Politics & Gender 10 (3): 365–91.

47 Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2025b. “Are Resources the Answer? How Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Financial Resources Shape Political Giving.” Center for American Women and Politics, 19 May. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/blog/are-resources-answer-how-gender-raceethnicity-and-financial-resources-shape-political-giving

48 Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2025c. "Understanding Black Women’s and Latinas’ Perspectives about Political Giving." PS: Political Science & Politics 58 (1): 31–6.

49 Kronenberg, Alan. 2024. "The Biggest Political Donors of the 2024 Election." U.S. News & World Report, November 5. https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2024-11-05/the-biggest-political-donors-of-the-2024-election; Shames et al. 2025

50 Werner, Timothy, and Kenneth R. Mayer. 2007. "Public Election Funding, Competition, and Candidate Gender." PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (4): 661–7.

51 Lamendola, Courtney, and Steph Scaglia. 2022. Women's Representation and the Twin-Track Ecosystem in the 100 Largest Cities in the U.S. RepresentWomen, November. https://www.representwomen.org/100_largest_cities; Viyas, Nirali, Chisun Lee, and Gregory Clark. 2020. Small Donor Public Financing Could Advance Race and Gender Equity in Congress. Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law, New York, NY. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/small-donor-public-financing-could-advance-race-and-gender-equity 

52 Booker, Brakkton, and Myah Ward. 2024. “Harris’ Zoom-Fueled Campaign Triggers a Dormant Political Base.” Politico, July 27. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/27/kamala-harris-identity-zoom-00171489; Schouten, Fredreka. 2024. "Kamala Harris' political operation raises $361 million in August – Nearly Tripling Donald Trump's Haul." CNN Wire, September 6. https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/06/politics/kamala-harris-august-fundraising; Sun, Albert, Andrew Park, Saurabh Datar, and Christine Zhang. 2024. "Who Are Kamala Harris’s 1.5 Million New Donors?" The New York Times, August 22. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/22/us/elections/kamala-harris-donors.html

53 Ball, Molly. 2024. "American Women are Unapologetically Wielding Political Power." Wall Street Journal, August 3. https://tinyurl.com/w3fhrm4x

54 Bailey, Phillip M., and Mabinty Quarshie. 2023. "Here's What Black Women Say They Need from the Democratic Party to Win Elections in 2024,” USA Today, February 22. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/02/22/black-women-candidates-democrats-2024/11228825002/

  • 1

    Hegewisch, Ariane and Cristy Mendoza. 2023. "Gender and Racial Wage Gaps Marginally Improve in 2022 but Pay Equity Still Decades Away." Institute for Women's Policy, September 15. https://iwpr.org/gender-and-racial-wage-gaps-marginally-improve-in-2022-but-pay-equity-still-decades-away/

  • 2

    Uhlaner, Carole Jean, and Kay Lehman Schlozman. 1986. "Candidate Gender and Congressional Campaign Receipts." Journal of Politics 48 (1): 30–50.

  • 3

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics) “Congress.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/levels-office/congress

  • 4

    Uhlaner and Schlozman 1986

  • 5

    Burrell, Barbara. 1994. A Woman's Place is in the House: Campaigning for Congress in the Feminist Era. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; Crespin, Michael H., and Janna L. Deitz. 2010. “If You Can’t Join ’Em, Beat ’Em: the Gender Gap in Individual Donations to Congressional Candidates.” Political Research Quarterly 63 (3): 581–93.

  • 6

    Malcolm, Ellen C., and Craig Unger. 2017. When Women Win: EMILY's List and the Rise of Women in American Politics. Boston, MA: Mariner Books.

  • 7

    Fraga, L. Bernard, and G. J. Hans Hassell. 2021. "Are Minority and Women Candidates Penalized by Party Politics? Race, Gender, and Access to Party Support." Political Research Quarterly 74 (3): 540–55.

  • 8

    Cooperman, Rosalyn. 2022. "Supporting Women Candidates: The Role of Parties, Women’s Organizations, and Political Action Committees." In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, ed. Susan J. Carroll, Richard L. Fox, and Kelly Dittmar. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

  • 9

    Kanthak, Kristin, and George A. Krause. 2012. The Diversity Paradox: Political Parties, Legislatures, and the Organizational Foundations of Representation in America, 1st edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Kettler, Jaclyn. 2020. “Paying it Forward: Candidate Contributions and Support for Diverse Candidates.” In Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy, eds. Shauna L. Shames, Rachel I. Bernhard, Mirya R. Holman, and Dawn Langan Teele. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 

  • 10

    Seltzer, Richard A., Jody Newman, and Melissa Voorhees Leighton. 1997. Sex as a Political Variable: Women as Candidates & Voters in U.S. Elections. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 9.

  • 11

    Burrell 1994; Burrell, Barbara. 2014. Gender in Campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). 2024a. “Women, Money, & Politics Watch 2024.” Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/research/cawp-women-money-and-politics-series/money-watch-2024

     

  • 12

    Cooperman 2022

  • 13

    Thomsen, Danielle M. 2025. The Money Signal: How Fundraising Matters in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

  • 14

    Crowder-Meyer, Melody and Rosalyn Cooperman. 2018. “Can’t Buy Them Love: How Party Culture among Donors Contributes to the Party Gap in Women’s Representation.” The Journal of Politics 80 (4): 1211–24; Cooperman 2022; RepresentWomen. 2020. PACs and Donors: Agents of Change for Women's Representation, June. https://www.representwomen.org/2020_pac_report

  • 15

    Kitchens, Karin E., and Michele L. Swers. 2016. "Why Aren't There More Republican Women in Congress? Gender, Partisanship, and Fundraising Support in the 2010 and 2012 Elections." Politics & Gender 12 (4): 648–76.

  • 16

    Bryner, Sarah. 2020. Racial and Gender Diversity in the 117th Congress. Open Secrets, Washington, DC. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/gender-and-race-2020?category=; Sorensen, Ashley, and Philip Chen. 2022. "Identity in Campaign Finance and Elections: The Impact of Gender and Race on Money Raised in 2010–2018 U.S. House Elections." Political Research Quarterly 75 (3): 738–53.

  • 17

    Plaskon, Savannah, and Danielle Thomsen. 2024. "Self-Rising Candidates: Racial and Gender Disparities in Self-Funding." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

  • 18

    Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2023. The Donor Gap: Raising Women’s Political Voices. A CAWP Women, Money, & Politics report. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/research/cawp-women-money-and-politics-series/donor-gap; CAWP 2024a

  • 19

    Haner, Joanne. 2024. "Republican Candidates Outpace Democrats in Self-Funding Campaigns." OpenSecrets, February 28. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2024/02/republican-candidates-outpace-democrats-in-self-funding-campaigns/; Plaskon and Thomsen 2024

  • 20

    Barber, Michael J., Daniel M. Butler, and Jessica Preece. 2016. "Gender Inequalities in Campaign Finance." Quarterly Journal of Political Science 11 (2): 219–48.

  • 21

    Carroll, Susan J., and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2013. More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to the State Legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Dittmar, Kelly, Kira Sanbonmatsu, and Susan J. Carroll. 2018. A Seat at the Table: Congresswomen's Perspectives on Why Their Presence Matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

  • 22

    James, Heather. 2022. "There’s No Women’s Mafia: Women’s Donor Groups in State Legislative Elections." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (4): 483–98; Phillips, Christian Dyogi. 2021. Nowhere to Run: Race, Gender, and Immigration in American Elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • 23

    Windett, Jason. 2014. "Differing Paths to the Top: Gender, Ambition, and Running for Governor." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 35 (4): 287–314.

  • 24

    Sanbonmatsu, Kira, Kathleen Rogers, and Claire Gothreau. 2020. The Money Hurdle in the Race for Governor. Individual Contributors, 2000-2018. A CAWP Women, Money, & Politics report. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.  

  • 25

    Barber et al. 2016

  • 26

    Herrick, Rebekah. 1996. "Is There a Gender Gap in the Value of Campaign Resources?" American Politics Quarterly 24 (1): 68–80; Kitchens and Swers 2016

  • 27

    Herrnson, S. Paul, Charles Hunt, and Jaclyn J. Kettler. 2022. "Vive la Différence? Is There a Gender Gap in Campaign Strategy and Spending, and Does It Matter?" Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (4): 463–82.

  • 28

    Koprowski, Samantha. N.d. Money Talks: Race and Gender in Public Opinion of Women’s Campaign Financing. Ph.D. Dissertation. Rutgers University. 

  • 29

    Koprowski, Samantha, Amy Benner, and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2025. "Agents of Change? Women Candidates and Support for Campaign Finance Reform." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 46 (2): 93–111.

  • 30

    Ondercin, L. Heather, and Ciera Dalton. 2023. "Gender Candidate Evaluations and Campaign Donations." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 44 (1): 56–74.

  • 31

    Dudley, Jennifer S. K., and Olivia T. Neff. 2025. "The Cost of Political Action Committee Funding: Evidence on Political Action Committee Funding Refusal Across Candidate Race and Gender." The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics 10 (2): 454-80

  • 32

    Dudley and Neff 2025, 472

  • 33

    Burns, Nancy, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • 34

    Magleby, David B., Jay Goodliffe, and Joseph A. Olsen. 2018. Who Donates in Campaigns?: The Importance of Message, Messenger, Medium, and Structure. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 215.

  • 35

    Kuriwaki, Shiro, Pia Deshpande, and Thomas Hershewe. 2025. The Cooperative Election Study's Cumulative File and CES Participation File. https://cooperativeelectionstudy.shinyapps.io/ParticipationTrends/; Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2025a. “Who Doesn’t Give: Race, Gender, and Political Contributions in the 2024 Elections.” Working paper, Rutgers University. But see Shames, Shauna L., Sara Morell, Ashley Jardina, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Nancy Burns. 2025. What's Happened to the Gender Gap in Political Activity?: Social Structure, Politics, and Participation in the United States. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

  • 36

    Gothreau, Claire, and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2023. "Women and Unequal Voice in Governors’ Races: A Study of Campaign Contributions." Politics, Groups, and Identities 11 (1): 158–68.

  • 37

    Bouton, Laurent, Julia Cagé, Edgard Dewitte, and Vincent Pons. 2024. "Small Campaign Donors." Working Paper 30050. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w30050; CAWP 2024a

  • 38

    Baker, Anne, and C. Monica Schneider. 2025. "Party Convergence and Divergence among Republican Women." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 46 (3): 248–61.

  • 39

    Magleby et al. 2018: 219

  • 40

    RepresentWomen 2020; CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). 2024b. “Even Including Small-Dollar Amounts, Men are Outgiving Women; Women Candidates Receive Smaller Average Donations,” October 10. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/news-media/press-releases/even-including-small-dollar-amounts-men-are-outgiving-women-women

     

  • 41

    Sanbonmatsu 2023

  • 42

    Grumbach, Jacob M., Alexander Sahn, and Sarah Staszak. 2022. "Gender, Race, and Intersectionality in Campaign Finance." Political Behavior 44 (1): 319–40.

  • 43

    CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). 2024c. “Men Vastly Outgiving Women in 2024 Congressional Elections,” September 16. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/news-media/press-releases/men-vastly-outgiving-women-2024-congressional-elections

  • 44

    Sanbonmatsu 2023; CAWP 2024a; Thomsen, Danielle, and Michele L. Swers. 2017. "Which Women Can Run? Gender, Partisanship, and Candidate Donor Networks." Political Research Quarterly 70 (2): 449–63.

  • 45

    Sanbonmatsu 2023; CAWP 2024a

  • 46

    Barnes, Tiffany D., and Emily Beaulieu. 2014. "Gender Stereotypes and Corruption: How Candidates Affect Perceptions of Election Fraud." Politics & Gender 10 (3): 365–91.

  • 47

    Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2025b. “Are Resources the Answer? How Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Financial Resources Shape Political Giving.” Center for American Women and Politics, 19 May. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/blog/are-resources-answer-how-gender-raceethnicity-and-financial-resources-shape-political-giving

  • 48

    Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2025c. "Understanding Black Women’s and Latinas’ Perspectives about Political Giving." PS: Political Science & Politics 58 (1): 31–6.

  • 49

    Kronenberg, Alan. 2024. "The Biggest Political Donors of the 2024 Election." U.S. News & World Report, November 5. https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2024-11-05/the-biggest-political-donors-of-the-2024-election; Shames et al. 2025

  • 50

    Werner, Timothy, and Kenneth R. Mayer. 2007. "Public Election Funding, Competition, and Candidate Gender." PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (4): 661–7.

  • 51

    Lamendola, Courtney, and Steph Scaglia. 2022. Women's Representation and the Twin-Track Ecosystem in the 100 Largest Cities in the U.S. RepresentWomen, November. https://www.representwomen.org/100_largest_cities; Viyas, Nirali, Chisun Lee, and Gregory Clark. 2020. Small Donor Public Financing Could Advance Race and Gender Equity in Congress. Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law, New York, NY. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/small-donor-public-financing-could-advance-race-and-gender-equity

  • 52

    Booker, Brakkton, and Myah Ward. 2024. “Harris’ Zoom-Fueled Campaign Triggers a Dormant Political Base.” Politico, July 27. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/27/kamala-harris-identity-zoom-00171489; Schouten, Fredreka. 2024. "Kamala Harris' political operation raises $361 million in August – Nearly Tripling Donald Trump's Haul." CNN Wire, September 6. https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/06/politics/kamala-harris-august-fundraising; Sun, Albert, Andrew Park, Saurabh Datar, and Christine Zhang. 2024. "Who Are Kamala Harris’s 1.5 Million New Donors?" The New York Times, August 22. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/22/us/elections/kamala-harris-donors.html

  • 53

    Ball, Molly. 2024. "American Women are Unapologetically Wielding Political Power." Wall Street Journal, August 3. https://tinyurl.com/w3fhrm4x

  • 54

    Bailey, Phillip M., and Mabinty Quarshie. 2023. "Here's What Black Women Say They Need from the Democratic Party to Win Elections in 2024,” USA Today, February 22. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/02/22/black-women-candidates-democrats-2024/11228825002/