|
Description
2004 marked a very close presidential race accompanied by unprecedented mobilization and high rates of interest, attention, and participation by the electorate (Bergan et al. 2006). The 2004 election marked a record turnout of over 60 percent of eligible voters, or 122.3 million voters, representing a dramatic increase from the 2000 election which attracted 105.4 million voters (or 54.2 percent of the voting-eligible population) to the polls. Voter turnout in 2004 was the highest of any election since 1968. Interest in the election and attention to the campaign also spiked in 2004. In 2004, 85% of respondents to the National Election Studies (NES) poll claimed to care a lot about the campaign compared with 78% in 2000. Similarly, in 2004, 52% of respondents claimed to be "very much" interested in the campaign, up from 29% in 2000. There was a corresponding increase in the level of attention to the presidential election; 65% of respondents claimed to pay "a great deal" or "quite a bit of attention" to the election in 2004 versus 47% in 2000 (NES 2004, 2000).
The 2004 elections were also accompanied by increased contributing behavior; presidential candidates more than doubled total campaign funding receipts from the 2000 electoral cycle. In this article, we will explore the population of donors and attempt to explain the reason for the increase in contributors. The results suggest that campaign contributing, like voting behavior, was affected by the competitiveness of the presidential race: two ideologically opposed candidates were facing one another in what many perceived as a close election. The level of interest in and the overall competitiveness of the race worked in conjunction with new institutional features, such as technological innovations and campaign finance regulations, to increase the number of contributions during the 2004 campaign.
Many different forms of participation are marked by unrepresentativeness of participants versus the population as a whole in either political attitudes or demographic characteristics (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995). A typical complaint about campaign contributions is that they skew the political contest away from the typical voter by favoring wealthy contributors. While this may have been the case in the 2000 election, in the 2004 election there appears to be a rough balance in ideological contributors. While contributors are not ideologically similar to the average individual, there is a rough balance of the number of contributors on the left and right. The results suggest that with more widespread contributing during a campaign, contributors appear to be more evenly balanced ideologically; this claim has been made concerning other types of behavior (Rosenstone and Hansen 1993) and appears to hold for campaign contributing.
We will draw on two datasets to explore the 2004 contributors. The first data set involves aggregate contribution data. Because the contributions are categorized by size and by type of contribution (individual contributions versus PAC contributions or public funds), we can make some claims about the nature of contributions in the 2004 presidential election cycle. The large percentage of small contributions during the 2004 election suggests that it is greater participation by individuals interested in the campaign driving the increase in contributions, rather than say groups interested in some form of quid pro quo.
The second data set we use to explore donors, the NES survey, includes questions about a number of demographic and ideological attributes of donors versus noncontributors which allow us to determine how representative donors are of the population as a whole. In addition, the data allow us to attempt to explain why some individuals give and others do not.
The next section will use aggregate data to explore donors. The following two sections will use NES data; the first of these will explore the importance of the effect of institutional features such as the Internet and new reforms on contributing behavior. The second of these will explore the representativeness of donors. These two sections will be followed by a summary and some conclusions. Overall, we find that during the 2004 campaign, individual contributing was widespread due to interest in the campaign, and contributors, while different from the average individual in terms of demographic characteristics and ideology, were roughly balanced ideologically between the two major parties.
Political Contributions in the 2004 Presidential Campaign
Presidential contenders in the 2004 election cycle raised $674 million, more than doubling total receipts from the 2000 cycle. Individual contributors alone donated over $600 million to presidential candidates during the 2004 campaign, representing nearly a threefold increase from the $213 million that candidates raised cumulatively from individuals during the 2000 presidential election cycle (Malbin 2006; see Table 1).
Democratic candidates cumulatively raised $347 million from individual contributors in 2004, up from $63 million in 2000, and George W. Bush raised $257 million in 2004, sizably more than a total of $151 million raised by all Republican contenders in 2000. This growth is impressive especially considering it was achieved during the first presidential election cycle in which the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) was in effect. Analysts had long debated the effect BCRA might have on presidential fundraising, and many believed its provisions--the ban on soft money in particular--could hinder candidates' ability to solicit funds. BCRA also increased the maximum individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000, a change that also appears to have had significant implications in 2004.
The context in which presidential fundraising occurred in 2004 was influenced substantially by the fundraising dexterity President Bush had previously demonstrated. Bush's $96 million in total receipts during the 2000 race had shattered all previous records (Magleby 2002), creating high expectations for Republican performance in 2004 and prompting Democrats to reconsider and retune fundraising strategies.
One Bush decision the two leading Democratic contenders decided to emulate was to reject public financing during the primaries, freeing both candidates from the spending and other restrictions that may have compromised their ability to be competitive during the primary phase of the campaign. Early fundraising success enabled Howard Dean to announce on November 8, 2003, that he would opt out of the matching fund system. The Dean campaign had raised nearly $15 million between July 1 and September 30, 2003--more than three times as much as Kerry's next highest intake of $4 million over the same quarter (Malbin 2006). Still, five days following Dean's announcement, Kerry declared he would follow suit. No other Democrats could afford to reject public funds, but the three main actors in the primary phase of the campaign (Bush, Kerry, and Dean) had all opted out of the public presidential funding system.
Another key Bush strategy Democrats found useful was to rely more on high-dollar fundraisers. At the center of Bush's 2000 fundraising success were his Pioneers, individuals who had agreed to raise a minimum of $100,000 for Bush in 2000. A total of 241 pioneers alone raised $24.1 million for Bush in 2000. In 2004, the Bush campaign turned... |
More articles from Presidential Studies Quarterly
Painting the White House Green: Rationalizing Environmental Policy ins..., June 01, 2006
The Foreign Policy of George W. Bush: Values, Strategy, and Loyalty.(B..., June 01, 2006
Partisanship, party coalitions, and group support, 1952-2004., June 01, 2006
Hispanic voters in the 2000 and 2004 presidential general elections., June 01, 2006
Camelot only comes but once? John F. Kerry and the Catholic vote., June 01, 2006
Looking for additional articles?
Click here
to search our database of over 3 million articles.
|
