Donors to Presidential Campaigns Nearly All White

Bush Has Zero African-American Donors In Large Southern State; Edwards Gets More Money From Republicans Than From Blacks

If money is the "mother's milk of politics," as experts claim, then most of the mothers in North Carolina are white men. That's one of the conclusions of an extensive new study of Tar Heel donors to George W. Bush, John Edwards and other presidential candidates.

The study by Democracy North Carolina, a nonpartisan money-in-politics research group, examined 1,436 donors who are identified by name on disclosure reports because they gave a presidential candidate over $200 in 2003. It is believed to be the first comprehensive analysis of the race and gender of all identified campaign contributors from a state to presidential candidates.

Using voter registration and other public records, the group found that 96% of the North Carolina presidential donors are white and 67% are men. That profile contrasts sharply with the make up of voters in the state. According to State Board of Elections statistics for February 2003, less than 80% of registered voters are white and only 45% are men.

"When donors don't look like voters, that's a problem for a democracy - especially when donors can determine who is deemed a viable candidate," said Peter Walz, who helped coordinate the study. "The goal of democracy is 'one person, one vote,' but the campaign financing system seems stuck in the era when elections were restricted to 'white men with property.' "

The study found that:

• Of the 201 North Carolinians giving over $200 to George W. Bush before the July 1 cutoff, 98% are white, none are African Americans, and 2% are Hispanic or Asian.

• North Carolina native John Edwards had the most donors by far - 1,108 giving over $200. Of this number, 95% are white, 3% are African American, and 2% are other people of color.

• Bush received five times as much money from white Democrats as he did from all non-whites, while Edwards got nearly twice as much from white Republicans as from people of color.

• Neither of the African Americans among the leading candidates for president (and the only woman) - Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton - received more than $200 from any N.C. donor.

• The other leading Democratic contenders (Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Lieberman, and Bob Graham) received at total of 127 donations above $200, with 98% coming from whites, 1% from an African American, and 1% from an Hispanic donor.

The racial disparity in who funds presidential elections is one of the issues wrapped up in the fate of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act now before the U.S. Supreme Court. A group of plaintiffs is arguing that the new law's increase in hard-dollar contributions, from $1,000 to $2,000 per election, harms low-income and non-white voters and their candidates.

"The candidates I support are often not connected to people who have that kind of money," says the Rev. Carrie Bolton of Pittsboro, N.C., who chairs the board of the Fannie Lou Hamer
Project, a national organization that views campaign finance reform as a civil-rights issue. "I can put up all the signs I want for my candidate, but I'll never be able to get my voice heard like the wealthy backers of my opponent. It's like fighting a fire with a cup of water."

The Democracy North Carolina study shows that the racial disparity widens as the size of the contributions increases. It found that donors of $2000 are even more often white (97%) than those giving from $201 to $999 (94%).

"This unprecedented research demonstrates that today's campaign finance system discriminates against people based on their economic status, their race, and their gender," said John Bonifaz, executive director of the National Voting Rights Institute, a Boston-based law firm challenging the higher hard-dollar contribution limits. "A system dominated by wealthy white men is antithetical to the promise of political equality for all. The wealth primary process should be replaced with a system of full public funding of our elections, ensuring that all voices will be heard."

More than any other candidate, George Bush benefited from the higher contribution limits, the study says. Bush got 81% of his North Carolina money from 114 donors who each gave $2000. Edwards received 57% of his $1.2 million in state funds from $2000-donors, while five other Democrats got 34% of their combined total from the top donors.

Of the 468 donors in the state who gave $2000 to a presidential candidate, only 5 are African American. By contrast, 11 top donors, all white, are listed as "students." Altogether, 36 black donors contributed $27,985 to presidential candidates, while 25 "students" gave a total of $32,336.

Campaign finance reformers say the racial disparity even at relatively low contribution levels reveals flaws in the partial public financing system in presidential primaries. That system rewards candidates who can gather scores of donations of up to $250 from at least 20 states - a barrier that candidates with limited access to wealthy donors cannot meet.

"This research clearly shows that any campaign finance system built on large private contributions excludes African Americans from full participation in the political system," says Nick Nyhart, executive director of Public Campaign in Washington, DC. "The current private money set-up needs to be put in the trash heap, just like the poll tax and other Jim Crow laws."

The report notes that white men are a minority in the both major parties in North Carolina. One out of every three Democrats is an African American, and women make up 59% of registered Democrats and 51% of registered Republicans. Men are less likely to vote than women in North Carolina and nationally, but they can define the agenda - and the gender - of leading candidates by dominating the supply of money, the report says.

"In virtually every category of giving, two thirds of the donors are men. And often the women are listed as 'homemaker' or 'unemployed,' indicating that another family member is using them to funnel more money to a candidate," said Walz.

The study by Democracy North Carolina is part of a series on the "color of money" in politics. A report released earlier this month found similar disparities between the make up of donors and voters in local and state-level elections. That report was produced by a team of college students in the organization's Democracy Summer program. It shows that whites supplied 99% of the early money raised from donors giving over $2,000 in the 2000 race for governor (Mike Easley versus Richard Vinroot); 73% of these donors were men. It also found that whites supplied 94% of the money examined in mayoral contests in Charlotte and Greenville, N.C.

"The more campaign contributions determine who can succeed in elections, the less the outcomes reflect a true democracy," said Walz. "If money is simply an expression of free speech, then it's clear whose voices are not being heard in our elections."

Click here to read the full report (PDF format): The Color of Presidential Money.
Click here to view charts for The Color of Presidential Money (PDF format).