Political contributions have traditionally come overwhelmingly from men. They still do, but the sausage party is starting to get crashed:
Forty-three percent of all reported contributions to federal candidates for this election have come from women, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by Crowdpac, a political crowdfunding website, higher than any election cycle on record. Women have also provided a fifth of all individual contributions to super PACs for this election, compared with just 1 percent in 2010, the year the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision paved the way for new levels of giving to outside groups.
There are a couple of explanations for this. One is that as time goes on, there are more women who are rich and control their own money. That would be a big part of the Super PAC picture, because a jump from 1 percent to 20 percent in that big-money land is not coming from your average woman. Female donors also report cultural shifts that make it easier for them to be open about their political allegiances and giving. But there’s something else in this particular presidential election cycle. Can you guess what that might be?
Close to half of Mrs. Clinton’s “bundlers” — the volunteer fund-raisers who solicit checks from friends and business associates — are women, compared with about a third of President Obama’s 2012 bundlers. Nearly 60 percent of Mrs. Clinton’s reported contributions, totaling $70 million, have come from women, according to Crowdpac, the most of any presidential candidate by far. (The tally does not include contributions too small to be itemized in election commission reports.)
It’s almost like having a woman—one who supports women-friendly policies, not just a token of “look at us not waging a war on women”—as a major party’s presidential frontrunner makes a difference in who gets involved in politics. Funny how that works.