The Hillary Gender Divide: Women Contribute Less To Campaigns — If Hillary Runs, Will She Get the Financial Support She'll Need From Women?

Hillary Clinton greets a U.S. airman in Kabul, Afghanistan, in her
capacity as U.S. Secretary of State, July 7, 2012. (Flickr/DVIDSHUB)

By Emily Kopp

Women make fewer contributions than men to both outside spending groups and campaigns, and that disparity widens as the denominations climb, OpenSecrets research has shown.

But could that gap possibly extend to Hillary Clinton's contributors? Should she announce a 2016 bid, Clinton likely stands a better chance of becoming the first female president than any woman in history. It seems natural that she would accrue a lot of financial support from the women who want to see that landmark reached.

That seems to be the case when it comes to Ready for Hillary, a pro-Clinton super PAC, that has raised $2.6 million. Women are responsible for 46 percent of that sum. That's not a majority, but it's far higher than the share of contributions to all outside groups in 2012 that came from women -- 20 percent.

It's hard to make a direct comparison between Ready for Hillary and any of the groups working against a possible Clinton candidacy. Stop Hillary PAC, for instance, is staffed by a roster of Beltway conservatives, and its treasurer is Dan Backer, the attorney in the McCutcheon case, but it has raised just $7,500. So far, Stop Hillary PAC demonstrates the typical donor divide -- just 37 percent of contributions has come from women. 

When it comes to direct contributions to campaigns, parties and PACs, megadonors bumping up against the overall limits on donations -- now defunct after the Supreme Court's recent decision in McCutcheon v. FEC -- tend to be overwhelmingly male as well: Of the 644 donors who hit the aggregate donations cap in 2012, just over one-fifth were women. By comparison, men accounted for close to 70 percent of all 2012 campaign contributions of more than $200.

Will donors to a Clinton 2016 White House campaign look the same? Not if her 2008 campaign is any guide. In fact, a slightly greater share of her over-$200 donations -- 50.9 percent -- came from women.

Slicing those donations down further reveals a more complicated picture, though. Women make up a larger share of Clinton's smaller donors than of her pool of larger contributors.

(click to enlarge)

In short, the larger the donation, the less likely the donor is a woman. That observation falls in line with the broader trend in contributions to congressional candidates.

As this blog has noted, "the evidence strongly suggests that men make up a bigger share of the donor pool when contribution limits are higher -- or nonexistent."

In the post-McCutcheon era, the edge Clinton had from her large number of small-dollar donors could diminish as large contributors play an increasingly important role.

Though male and female candidates tend to build up equally large war chests, some evidence suggests women are more likely to be deterred from running for public office by the inevitable, uncomfortable chore of raising money. Why the gender divide? Women are more likely than men to think they lack the necessary network of donors, according to a survey by the Center for American Women in Politics. Another recent study noted people elected to office tend to be rich to begin with.

The foundation for that fear applies far less to the most powerful woman in politics, but the gender divide is likely prominent on Clinton's radar screen as she mulls whether to enter the race. 

CRP Senior Researcher Doug Weber contributed to this post.

Follow Emily on Twitter @emilyakopp