A new study showed women running for public office in Arizona and around the country often face disadvantages, especially in securing campaign dollars.
The Center for American Women and Politics said historically, women have been unable to match their male counterparts' personal financial resources and do not receive the same noteworthy financial contributions from donors.
Kira Sanbonmatsu, senior scholar at the Center for American Women in Politics, said it affects the number of women elected to office, leading to a lack of representation in politics. She pointed out Arizona is a bit of an exception, as it is one of a few states where women legislators are well established.
"We are seeing that women are running in large numbers for the legislature, and this is, of course, a state where women have done well," Sanbonmatsu observed. "Arizona ranks second nationally for women state legislative representation."
Women are about 50% of representation in the Arizona Legislature, with 29 House seats and 16 Senate seats. This November, Arizona voters will elect nine U.S. House members. They'll also fill one U.S. Senate seat with either Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., or Republican Kari Lake. Data show Gallego has raised almost $29 million and Lake almost $8.5 million.
Sanbonmatsu noted men are more likely to be providing the funds "fueling" state candidates, meaning there is also a lack of female representation among donors. Female candidates are raising a higher portion of funds from small contributors, of $200 or less. The average proportion of small contributions for congressional challengers is highest for Democratic women at 34%, followed by Democratic men at 22% and then by Republican men at 21%.
"We don't often think about giving to politics as an important part of participation," Sanbonmatsu acknowledged. "Women 'outvote' men, but what people don't appreciate as much is that men are 'out-giving' women in terms of funds."
She added it has an effect on whose voices are heard at the state level. She added the Center hopes the data will help "demystify" the campaign-finance space, for the public and for women candidates.
get more stories like this via email
This week marks 15 years since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The ruling reshaped campaign finance by allowing unlimited corporate and union spending in elections. The decision has left a profound mark on states like Ohio.
Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, highlighted its local impact at a roundtable discussion this week. But first, he remarked on the presence of billionaire donors at Monday's presidential inauguration.
"Oligarchy in America, boy, yesterday was a portrait of that," Morelle observed. "In Ohio, for example, an electric utility used dark money to cause state House lawmakers to ensure passage of a bill which bailed out the coal and nuclear plants, while rolling back clean energy standards."
American Electric Power reached a multimillion-dollar settlement after a federal investigation into its role in Ohio's House Bill 6 scandal. The Columbus-based utility announced it will pay a $19 million fine to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause, underscored the national and local consequences of unchecked political spending.
"Since the Citizens United decision happened, they have spent now 13 times the amount this election," Solomón pointed out. "It's no wonder that you have people who are nurses, teachers, firefighters, everyday Americans who are running for office and just simply can't compete, or who have opted out."
Beyond corporate influence, Solomon mentioned the unmeasured effect of in-kind contributions, such as media control and algorithmic bias. The panel members warned Citizens United has undermined democratic representation, even as proponents defend it as free speech.
Tiffany Muller, president of the advocacy group End Citizens United, was also critical of Ohio's controversial House Bill 6, legislation to secure financial support for the state's aging power plants. She suggested it exemplifies how dark money can influence state policy.
"FirstEnergy paid $60 million to get a $1.3 billion bailout," Muller noted. "The largest pay-to-play corruption scandal in that state's history."
She added the Ohio scandal is just one example of how money can shift priorities toward corporate interests at the expense of voters.
get more stories like this via email
Ohio's U.S. Senate race between the incumbent, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Republican Bernie Moreno has become one of the most expensive in American history, now totaling more than $400 million.
At the heart of the high-stakes election is the role of cryptocurrency. Its backers' financial influence has ignited debate over regulation and transparency. Both sides have been vocal on what it could mean, not only for Ohioans but for the future of cryptocurrency regulation across the country.
Mark Hays, senior policy analyst at Americans for Financial Reform and the advocacy group Demand Progress, shared his skepticism about the money flowing from the crypto sector.
"The money that's being spent is an effort to punish those politicians for trying to maintain strong regulatory standards," Hays explained.
Moreno has gained substantial backing from the Defend American Jobs super PAC, a group aligned with pro-crypto interests. This PAC has launched a $41 million ad campaign promoting him. Hays argued it is all part of a broader push for lenient crypto regulations in Congress, which Brown strongly opposes.
At a campaign stop in Columbus on Monday, Moreno defended the support from crypto backers, stating, "The reason they supported me is because they agree with me, not because I agree with them." He also addressed questions about his personal connection to cryptocurrency.
"I sold my Bitcoin, so I didn't want to have any nonsense from liberal reporters saying that I'm pro-crypto because of financial interest," Moreno asserted. "And the crypto community understands that this election is an existential threat to their existence here in America."
Brown, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, has been a key figure in Congress advocating for strong regulatory oversight of the crypto industry. He has not shied away from addressing what he sees as significant risks posed by digital assets.
"The fraud, the scams and the outright theft; you can lose big in crypto's huge price swings," Brown pointed out. "They didn't tell you about the high fees pocketed by the crypto companies. Without regulation, stablecoins can endanger our economy, our payment system, our hard-earned money."
With control of a Senate seat in play and unprecedented levels of funding, Ohio voters are seeing firsthand how digital currency backers can shape political discourse.
Disclosure: Americans for Financial Reform contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy and Priorities, Campaign Finance Reform/Money in Pol, and Social Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Election Day is inching closer and the battleground state of Wisconsin will see more visits from the two main party presidential campaigns.
It was also the setting of a forum featuring a popular historian linking past events to the current debate over democracy.
Doris Kearns Goodwin, the renowned presidential historian, was the featured guest earlier this week at a discussion in suburban Milwaukee hosted by the United to Preserve initiative. When asked about present-day divisions and how they compare with similar turmoil in U.S. history, Goodwin pointed to the Industrial Revolution, noting it had the same effect on society as today's tech boom has.
"Globalization and the tech revolution have shaken up the economy, much as the Industrial Revolution did at the turn of the 20th century," Goodwin explained. "Think of what we went through then: It was the first time, really, that there was a gap between the rich and the poor, the first time, really, that people were from moving from the farms into the cities in record numbers."
She pointed out it fueled resentment among smaller communities, paving the way for an urban/rural divide seen today. Goodwin noted it took leaders such as former President Teddy Roosevelt, who had dealt with adversity in his own life, to channel that reflection and moderate his tone in a way that resonated with Americans from all kinds of backgrounds.
Goodwin said down the road, Lyndon Johnson had a heart attack while serving as a U.S. Senator. She said recovering from the medical scare inspired him to balance the quest for power with the need to serve the people.
"All of a sudden, one day, he just woke up and he said, 'Get me shaved, I'm ready to be back.' And he (a staffer) said, 'Well, what happened?' And he (Johnson) said, 'Well, I was lying here thinking what if I died now, what would I be remembered for? I have accumulated a lot of power, I've accumulated wealth, but have I really done something to make a difference in people's lives?'" Goodwin recounted.
Goodwin emphasized Johnson then became laser focused on advancing civil rights policy, even when the odds were stacked against him while serving as president. She noted it does not mean there weren't hard lessons learned along the way, with Johnson known for sometimes yelling at colleagues in humiliating fashion and regretting it the next day. Conversely, she pointed out Abraham Lincoln would write out a letter in anger but would set it aside and never have it delivered to the recipient, with it serving as a "cooling off" tool.
get more stories like this via email