Joel Moret

POLS 429W
Dwyre
April 28 2021
Race, Wealth and Contribution: Racial Diversity of Political Contributors Across Income
Levels
Previous scholarship has revealed the dominance of whiteness in the realm of
political contribution. But how does that dominance differ across varying income levels?
Using respondent data from the 2016 and 2018 Cooperative Congressional Election
Surveys, this study suggests that across lower incomes, political contributors are more
racially diverse, and that as income increases, the racial diversity of contributors
decreases. This is accomplished by comparing the difference between contribution rates
of white and non-white Americans across income levels, revealing that as income grows,
white Americans are more likely to contribute than non-white Americans, despite
contributing in similar rates across lower income levels.
Introduction

The motivations behind political participation is a broad and complex subject, often being

explained by a myriad of factors. Giving political contributions is one type of political

participation which seems to be especially affected by socioeconomic factors, as scholarship in

this area suggests. In their analyses, multiple scholars have found that campaign contributors are

characterized as being mostly white and affluent, describing the campaign finance arena as being

overwhelmed by a “racially homogeneous contributor class” (Grumbach and Sahn 2020, 218).

My inquiry into this area assumes the dominance of whiteness in political contribution across

higher income ranges and instead attempts to understand how the racial identification of political

donors varies across lower income levels, posing two questions: Are political contributors more

racially diverse across lower income ranges? Or does the dominance of white contributors exist

across lower income ranges as well as higher income ranges?

I hypothesize that political contributors are more racially diverse across lower income

ranges, as opposed to higher income ranges, in which political contributors are mostly white.

Using quantitative data from the 2016 and 2018 Cooperative Congressional Election Surveys, I

test this hypothesis using one dependent variable, one independent variable and one control
variable. The dependent variable is whether or not the survey respondent donated money to a

candidate, campaign or political organization in the last year; the independent variable is racial

self-identification of the respondent and the control variable is household income of the

respondent for the last year. The intended value here is to uncover further knowledge about the

political influence contributors have at varying income levels, which may partially cause

unrepresentative policy decisions.

Literature Review

Scholarship relevant to the characteristics and motivations of politically participatory

Americans is rather vast, considering the various types of ways people can participate in

American politics. Making a contribution is merely one of these types of political participation,

which is generally studied using similar models to those that are used in measuring other forms

of political participation (Leighley and Vedlitz 1999, 1094). Largely, the theories behind what

factors determine the likelihood of political participation rely on two models: a socioeconomic

status model (SES) and a mobilization model. The SES model relates to socioeconomic factors,

such as race, gender, education and income, while the mobilization model relies on theories

about environmental influence, such as professional and social networks, societal cues and

opportunities. In many cases, the models are intertwined, as oftentimes, socioeconomic factors

can be connected with mobilization factors and vice versa, effectively influencing each other

(Leighley 1995, 188-189; Leighley and Vedlitz 1999, 1094-1096).

Income

Virtually all scholars agree that income is positively related to the ability and inclination

of an individual to donate to a political campaign. Generally, studies show that the greater

someone’s income is, the more likely they are to donate to a political campaign, and moreover,
income stands out as more influential than other factors. Brady et al. suggests that money is a

primary predictor of political participation in the form of campaign contributions and that

contributing was not influenced by factors such as free time and civic skills. Here, “civic skills”

refers to a person’s ability to speak publicly and write, as well as, being able to organize and

participate in political meetings (Brady et al. 1995, 285). Moreover, some studies suggest that

income can interact with some of the other variables that explain political participation, such as

race. For instance, Verba et al. suggests that disparities in political resources, like money,

between racial groups can almost completely explain why more members of minority groups

abstain from political participation, such as campaign finance (Verba et al. 1993, 494). Moreover,

James III concludes that political donors tend to be in a higher socioeconomic class and that the

differences in contribution demographics are less dramatic in other types of donation, meaning

that there is more socioeconomic diversity when measuring people who donate for non-political

reasons, like donating to educational, religious or charitable organizations (James III 2009, 542).

Race

Race of Contributor Scholars in this area suggest that the dominant racial category for

campaign contributors is white and that whiteness is connected to income and other resources

needed for political participation. Grumbach and Sahn suggest that most campaign contributors

are racially similar and unrepresentative of the American electorate, describing a “racially

homogenous contributor class,” which dominates the campaign finance arena (Grumbach and

Sahn 2020, 218). Similarly, James III suggests that political donors are mostly white, concluding

that racial disparities between political donors is significant, however, the racial disparities

between educational, religious or charitable donors is not as stark, as was the case with

socioeconomic status, discussed in the previous section (James III 2009, 542).
Race of Candidate Recent scholarly investigations in this area suggest that if a constituent

shares the racial identity of a candidate running for office, then that constituent is more likely to

donate to the candidate. Using estimated racial identities for 27 million campaign contributors

across the years 1980 to 2012, Grumbach and Sahn found that the presence of a racially diverse

candidate increases the likelihood of a more diverse group of contributors (Grumbach and Sahn

2020, 218).

Gender

Gender of Contributor Scholars tend to agree that campaign contributors are more likely to be

male rather than female and that women, specifically women of color, are underrepresented in

campaign contributing. Using contributor records from the Database on Money and Ideology in

Elections (DIME), Grumbach et al. found evidence to support the underrepresentation of women

in campaign finance and further suggested that the gender disparity in campaign finance is more

drastic than in other realms of political participation (Ibid., 18).

Gender of Candidate Recent scholarship in this area supports the idea that the gender of a

candidate influences how much that candidate will receive in contributions when running for an

elected position. Grumbach et al. found that generally, candidates rely on donations from

individuals who share their gender identity, however, candidate race appeared to be a stronger

motivator for contributing than candidate gender (Ibid.). Further, Grumbach et al. determined

that while female donors gave more to female candidates across the racial spectrum, only white

female candidates received larger contributions from women of all races (Ibid).

Skills

Job Skills Scholarship in this area tends to suggest that employment can offer practice for

skills that are relevant for political participation, but that claim does not apply equally to all
forms of employment. For instance, Verba et al. determined that white people were more likely

than African Americans and Latinos to have practiced skills relevant to political participation on

the job, despite being employed at similar rates. These skills include making a formal

presentation, organizing an event and speaking English (Verba et al. 1993, 476-477).

Furthermore, Verba et al. determined that across job categories, white people were most likely to

have an occupation that requires a greater amount of education, and that higher levels of

education increased the likelihood of gaining politically relevant skills, such as organization and

communication, in the workplace (Ibid., 477).

Institutional Skills Some scholars have indicated that skill sets received through membership

in institutions like churches or unions are positively related with political participation, but this

finding varies based on factors such as race. For instance, Verba et al. determined that Americans

of all racial categories were more likely to practice politically relevant skills and be exposed to

political messages in a church, rather than in a union. However, African-Americans receive the

greatest benefits from church membership when compared to white and Latino people. Here, the

politically relevant skills gained from church membership include organizing a church sponsored

event and communicating with other church members, which were linked to increased rates of

political participation, but did not seem to have an effect on making political contributions

specifically (Ibid., 489-490).

Intangible Resources

Education Scholars in this area generally agree that education is a valid predictor of making a

campaign contribution and other forms of political participation. Brady et al. suggests that formal

education leads to increased political participation by increasing a person’s interest in politics

(Brady et al. 1995, 283). However, in determining how impactful education is on campaign
contributions specifically, Brady et al. found that while education did have some impact, it was

not as strong of a predictor as income (Ibid., 283).

Ideology and Party Affiliation Scholarship in this area has had varied results in determining

the influence of a contributor’s ideology on their decision to financially support a candidate. In a

survey of an estimated 3000 donors (who contributed more than $200) from the 2012 election,

Barber found that respondents, in a great majority, indicated that ideology was an important

influence on deciding whether or not to financially support a candidate (Barber 2016, 156).

Furthermore, Francia et al. suggests that a sizable amount of contributors are ideologues who are

deeply invested in issues that affect the everyday lives of Americans, and give to candidates who

campaign on those issues. Additionally, Francia et al. concluded that Democrat contributors

generally take a liberal stance on most economic and social issues, while Republicans take a

conservative stance on economics and are more divided on social issues (Francia et al. 2003,

158-159). However, in an analysis of surveys from the American National Elections Study from

1972 to 2008, La Raja and Wiltes determined that ideology was not an influential factor for

campaign donors, and moreover, that campaign donors from the surveyed time period are not

extremely ideological and represent many opinions across the political spectrum (La Raja and

Wiltes 2012, 519).

Exposure to Politics and Networks for Political Engagement Some scholars in this area agree

that mobilization, or the interconnected nature of environment and influence, is a valuable

predictor of political contribution. Berg et al. determined that most large campaign contributors

in California have a personal relationship, or are otherwise acquainted with public officials and

other campaign contributors (Berg et al. 1981, 414). Moreover, Berg et al. found that it was

likely that these campaign contributors discussed politics with members of their social and
professional networks, which of course, includes both politicians and other contributors (Ibid.,

415-416). Furthermore, Francia et al. concluded that large contributors are mostly white,

affluent, middle-aged and well connected in social and political networks (Francia et al. 2003,

158).

Data and Methodology

To assess the racial identifications of political contributors across lower income ranges, I

use respondent answers for three questions on the 2016 and 2018 Cooperative Congressional

Election Surveys (CCES). These data are accessed through the Berkeley Survey Documentation

Analysis (SDA) archive, which states that the CCES “...seeks to study how Americans view

Congress and hold their representatives accountable during elections, how they voted and their

electoral experiences, and how their behavior and experiences vary with political geography and

social context” (Ansolabehere et al. 2019, 6). The 2018 CCES included 60,000 adult interview

cases and was completed over the internet by 60 teams, each conducting 1,000 person surveys by

YouGov, in two waves. The first wave was held from September 27th to November 5th; the

second wave was from November 7th to December 3rd (Ansolabehere et al. 2019, 6; 11).

Similarly, the 2016 CCES used the same methodology but sampled 64,600 cases with the first

wave date range being September 28th to November 7th and the second wave occurring

November 9th through December 14th (Ansolabehere et al. 2017, 7). Furthermore, the CCES is

part of the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which is an on-going study that was

founded in 2006 and has been conducted every year since (Ibid., 7).

The dependent variable, whether or not a respondent donated to a candidate, campaign or

political organization in the last year, was measured on the 2016 and 2018 CCES as part of a

‘select all that apply’ section, which inquired about respondent participation in multiple types of
activities in the past year. So, respondents were able to select whether or not they contributed in

at least one of the listed ways, being counted either as ‘selected’ if they did donate and ‘not

selected’ if they did not donate (Ansolabehere et al. 2016; Ansolabehere et al. 2018). This of

course, does not indicate how much money respondents donated and does not specify which of

the three types of donating was done by respondents (candidate, campaign or political

organization). However, this question from the CCES still acts as a valuable measure of political

contribution for my study, because specifying contribution amount and type aren’t necessary for

measuring my hypothesis. Further, the data supplied by inquiring about multiple types of

donation may provide a wider understanding of political contribution across lower income

ranges, instead of being limited by focusing only on one type of donation. For the purposes of

my study, CCES respondents who were counted as ‘selected’ will be referred to as ‘contributors’

or ‘“yes” respondents’; respondents who were counted as ‘not selected’ will be referred to as

‘non-contributors’, or ‘“no” respondents.’

The independent variable, respondent race, is recorded on the 2016 and 2018 CCES

through asking respondents to select a racial identification that best describes them: white, black,

Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Middle Eastern, mixed or other (Ansolabehere et al. 2016;

Ansolabehere et al. 2018). For the purposes of my study, I will use the racial categories white

and non-white (coded as ‘White’ and ‘N-White’). Here, the ‘N-White’ category contains

multiple racial identifications from the CCES, including: black, Hispanic, Asian, Native

American, Middle Eastern, mixed or other; ‘White’ only contains white respondents. These

racial identifications have been combined in this way because the sample sizes for some racial

categories in the CCES data were not significant enough individually to provide a valuable

analysis. This is one limitation of using the CCES data, however, this question acts as a valuable
measure for my study because it can still demonstrate a disparity between white and non-white

people, after the cateogies have been properly combined.

The control variable for my study, income, was measured on the CCES by asking

respondents which range of income best fit their household income for the past year. On the

CCES, respondents were given 17 income ranges to place themselves in: less than $10,000,

$10,000-$19,999, $20,000-$29,999, $30,000-$39,999, $40,000-$49,999, $50,000-$59,999,

$60,000-$69,999, $70,000-$79,999, $80,000-$89,999, $90,000-$99,999, $100,000-$119,999,

$120,000-$149,999, $150,000-$199,999, $200,000-$249,999, $250,000-$349,999,

$350,000-$499,999 and $500,000 or more (Ansolabehere et al. 2016; Ansolabehere et al. 2018).

For the purposes of my study, these cateoriges will be collapsed in my data analysis to include:

$19,999 or less, $20,000-$39,000, $40,000-$59,999, $60,000-$79,999, $80,000-$99,999,

$100,000-$149,999, $150,000-$249,000 and $250,000 or more. The income ranges were

collapsed into fewer categories to provide greater sample sizes for my study, as the income

question on the CCES is limited similarly to the race question: sample sizes for some categories

are too small to provide a valuable analysis. However, this question still acts as a valuable

measure for my study because it provides data from respondents across a wide variety of

incomes, which bodes well for understanding how small differences between incomes affect

political contribution behavior.

After being collapsed into the aforementioned categories, data from both the 2016 and

2018 CCES is analyzed independently by year and compiled graphically to illustrate the

percentage of contributors and the percentage of non-contributors within the categories of

“White” and “N-White”, by income range. To test my hypothesis, I take the percentage of white

and non white contributors in each income range and find the difference between them. Then, the
differences in percentages between white and non-white contributors for each income range are

compared to determine if the difference increases or decreases as income increases. If the

difference in the percentage of contributors increases as income increases, then the hypothesis is

supported. This tests the relationship between the dependent and independent variables by

showing how racial identity affects political contribution behavior, while controlling for income.

Discussion of Findings

In analyzing respondent data for the 2016 and 2018 CCES, I found that across both data

sets, my hypothesis is mostly supported. In general, white and non-white respondents contribute

at much similar rates across lower incomes, in comparison with higher incomes, in which white

respondents are more likely to donate. Furthermore, across all incomes, white respondents were

more likely to contribute than non-white respondents, albeit, not by a significant amount across

the lower income ranges. Additionally, to no surprise, rates of contribution increase steadily

across both white and non-white respondents as income increases, reaffirming the impact of

income on contribution behavior, as was discussed in the literature review.

Figure 1.
 Figure 1 shows the percentage of white and non-white contributors and non-contributors

within each income range for the 2016 CCES data. In short, Figure 1 demonstrates that the

percentage of white contributors increases substantially as income increases, moving from about

12% to about 51% from the lowest to highest income range. This contrasts the percentage of

non-white contributors, which only moves from about 10% to almost 37% across the entire

range. Moreover, only one category of respondents has more contributors than non-contributors:

white respondents with incomes of $250,000 or more.

Table 1.
2016 Contributors

Income % of White Rep. % of N-White Rep. % Diff. % Change

$19,999 or less 12.01% 10.41% 1.60%

$20,000-$39,999 16.60% 12.30% 4.29% +2.69%

$40,000-$59,999 21.50% 16.47% 5.03% +0.73%

$60,000-$79,999 25.36% 18.74% 6.62% +1.59%

$80,000-$99,999 26.92% 22.18% 4.73% -1.89%

$100,000-$149,999 32.15% 26.98% 5.16% +0.43%

$150,000-$249,999 39.31% 29.96% 9.35% +4.19%

$250,000 or more 51.55% 36.92% 14.63% +5.28%

Table 1 clearly indicates the differences in the percentages of white and non-white

contributors across income ranges in 2016. In six of the seven income ranges above $19,999 or

less, there is an increase in the difference between the percentage of white contributors and

non-white contributors. The only income range in which the difference is negative is

$80,000-$99,999. However, it should be noted that while the difference in percentage increases
between $80,000-$99,999 and $100,000-$149,000, the difference in percentage for

$100,000-$149,999 is still lower than it is for $80,000-$99,999. But, between the majority of

income categories, the difference in the percentage of white and non-white contributors

increases, and overall, moves from about 1.6% to about 14% from $19,999 or less to $250,000 or

more.

Figure 2.

Figure 2 illustrates the percentage of white and non-white contributors and

non-contributors within each income range for the 2018 CCES data. As with Figure 1, Figure 2

indicates a clear similarity in the percentage of contributors across lower income ranges and

shows that the difference in percentage grows more dissimilar as income increases. Overall, the

percentage of white respondents that were contributors grew from about 9% to about 52% from

$19,999 or less to $250,000 or more. Meanwhile, the percentage of non-white contributors

increases from 9% to only about 27%. Again, similar to the 2016 data, there was only one

category in the 2018 data which contained more contributors than non-contributors: white

respondents with incomes of $250,000 or more.

Table 2.
2018 Contributors

Income % of White Rep. % of N-White % Diff. % Change

$19,999 or less 9.52% 9.35% 0.17%

$20,000-$39,999 15.36% 11.34% 4.02% +3.86%

$40,000-$59,999 21.66% 16.11% 5.55% +1.53%

$60,000-$79,999 25.31% 17.81% 7.50% +1.95%

$80,000-$99,999 29.06% 19.48% 9.58% +2.08%

$100,000-$149,999 35.43% 25.88% 9.55% -0.03%

$150,000-$249,999 42.81% 29.81% 13.01% +3.45%

$250,000 or more 52.15% 27.64% 24.51% +11.50%

Table 2 shows the differences in the percentages of white and non-white contributors per

income range for the 2018 data. In comparison to 2016, there was again, only one instance in

which the difference in percentage decreased between income ranges. However, this decrease of

0.03% between $80,000-$99,999 and $100,000-$149,000 is even less substantial than the

previously discussed negative difference in the 2016 data. Although, it is interesting that in both

2016 and 2018, the only negative differences were between $60,000 and $149,999. This may

suggest that the increasing difference between the contribution rates of white and non-white

repsondents may slightly stagnate within the middle to upper income ranges.
Figure 3.

Figure 3 illustrates the differences between the percentages of white and non-white

contributors across 2016 and 2018 graphically. Here, there is a clear upward sloping trend from

the lowest income range to the highest, once again demonstrating that as income increases, so

does the difference between the percentage of white and non-white contributors. Figure 3 most

clearly represents what the CCES respondent data for 2016 and 2018 displays: across lower

incomes, contribution rates between white and non-white respondents are much more similar

than across higher incomes, in which, white respondents were much more likely to contribute.

Conclusion

Respondent data from the 2016 and 2018 CCES shows that at lower income ranges,

white and non-white people contribute politically at very similar rates. However, the difference

in contribution rates between white and non-white respondents grows substaintially as income
increases, indicating that contributors across higher incomes are less racially diverse. In short,

my study shows that for the 2016 and 2018 CCES respondents, as income increased, white

respondents became more likely to make political contributions than non-white respondents.

Further, my study suggests that income level affects the contribution habits of white and

non-white Americans similarly when income is low, but very differently when income is high.

Simply put, non-white Americans do not appear to increase their contribution habits as much as

white Americans when they have greater incomes. Similarly, my study reaffirms the findings of

past scholars, in that income is fundamentally influential on a person’s ability and inclination to

donate, which is further impacted by a myriad of other factors.

Further inquisition into this sector may benefit from additional analysis of income ranges

at smaller intervals and with more specific racial categories; this is one of the shortcomings of

my study, as the categories I used were combined to account for low respondent numbers.

Moreover, the aforementioned slight stagnation of the differences in the percentages of white and

non-white contributors between $60,000-$149,000 could be further studied to understand why

such a stagnation occurs.

Lastly, I believe that research into understanding how the gender of political contributors

differs across income ranges could be beneficial, as women have been historically

underrepresented in campaign finance. Furthermore, what I see to be fundamental to future

research in this sector is understanding which of the factors discussed in the literature review are

the most impactful on an American’s inclination and ability to contribute politically and

moreover, understanding how these factors impact people differently based on their race and

income.
References

Ansolabehere, Stephen, Brian F. Schaffner, and Sam Luks. 2018. “Cooperative

Congressional Election Study, 2018: Common Content.” Release 2: August 28, 2019.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, http://cces.gov.harvard.edu

Ansolabehere, Stephen, Brian F. Schaffner, and Sam Luks. 2016. “Cooperative

Congressional Election Study, 2016: Common Content.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University, http://cces.gov.harvard.edu

Ansolabehere, Stephen, Brian Schaffner, and Sam Luks. 2017. “Guide to the 2016 Cooperative

Congressional Election Survey.”

https://sda.berkeley.edu/sdaweb/docs/cces2016/DOC/CCES+Guide+2016.pdf

Ansolabehere, Stephen, Brian Schaffner, and Sam Luks. 2019. “Guide to the 2018 Cooperative

Congressional Election Survey.”

https://sda.berkeley.edu/sdaweb/docs/cces2018/DOC/CCES+Guide+2018.pdf

Barber, Michael. 2016. “Donation Motivations: Testing Theories of Access and Ideology.”

Political Research Quarterly 69 (1): 148–59.

Berg, Larry L., Larry L. Eastland, and Sherry Bebitch Jeffe. 1981. “Characteristics of Large

Campaign Contributors.” Social Science Quarterly 62 (3): 409–23.

Brady, Henry E., Sidney Verba, and Kay Lehman Schlozman. 1995. “Beyond Ses: A Resource

Model of Political Participation.” The American Political Science Review 89 (2): 271–94.

Francia, Peter, John Green, Paul Herrnson, Lynda Powell, and Clyde Wilcox. 2003. The

Financiers of Congressional Elections: Investors, Ideologues, and Intimates. New York:

Columbia University Press.

Grumbach, Jacob M., and Alexander Sahn. 2020. “Race and Representation in Campaign
 Finance.” American Political Science Review 114 (1): 206–21.

Grumbach, Jacob M., Alexander Sahn, and Sarah Staszak. 2020. “Gender, Race, and

Intersectionality in Campaign Finance.” Political Behavior, June.

James III, Russell N. 2009. “An Econometric Analysis of Household Political Giving in the

USA.” Applied Economics Letters 16 (5): 539–43.

La Raja, Raymond J., and David L. Wiltse. 2012. “Don’t Blame Donors for Ideological

Polarization of Political Parties: Ideological Change and Stability Among Political

Contributors, 1972-2008.” American Politics Research 40 (3): 501–30.

Leighley, Jan E. 1995. “Attitudes, Opportunities and Incentives: A Field Essay on Political

Participation.” Political Research Quarterly 48 (1): 181–209.

Leighley, Jan E., and Arnold Vedlitz. 1999. “Race, Ethnicity, and Political Participation:

Competing Models and Contrasting Explanations.” The Journal of Politics 61 (4):

1092–1114.

Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, Henry Brady, and Norman H. Nie. 1993. “Race,

Ethnicity and Political Resources: Participation in the United States.” British Journal of

Political Science 23 (4): 453–97.