Winnability as a Key Factor for Donations

1. Introduction
   1. One of the characteristics of representative democracy is the existence of a free and fair election. This serves also as the test to determine whether an official performs according to expectation or not. Apart from casting their votes, individuals also actively participate in the electoral process through campaign donations (Miller 101). Candidates for the 2020 US presidential elections such as Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have articulated that their candidacy is primarily propelled by small-donor donations. The amount of money received by a candidate from small donors or those whose contribution does not exceed $200 can be indicative of the mass appeal of a candidate.
   2. However, the percentage of small-donor donations only represents a small percentage of the total amount raised by candidates for their campaigns. The bulk of their campaign fund comes from wealthy individuals and political action committees (PACs). The involvement of these actors raises questions about democratic is the electoral system of the United States (Culberson, McDonald & Robbins 974). Donors donate not only to influence electoral outcomes but also to influence the policy-making process itself. Studies, however, have observed that big-money donors are political extremists and because of this, candidates receiving their support would pursue extreme policy stances if they wish to retain such support.
   3. Thesis: While donors would consider the extremist position of a candidate when making donations, winnability remains to be the key determinant in deciding to donate as evidenced by the result of the March 2020 primary elections in some congressional districts of California.
2. Body
   1. Reason for donating
      1. Donating serves as a reaffirmation of active citizenship. People feel that actively participating in an election is expected of a responsible and active citizen. Giving money to certain candidates serves this purpose (Ostrander 268).
      2. People donate because of their desire to influence electoral outcomes. Because of this, campaign donations also serve to enhance political efficacy. If they donate, it is as if that they feel that they will have a say in how policies are made (Ostrander 268).

• People donate because of their desire to influence policy-making. This is particularly true for large donors or those donating more than $200 and for political action committees. Private organizations such as drug companies would spend millions supporting a candidate in the hope that such candidate will advance their interest in government (Powell & Grimmer 980).

1. Donation patterns
   1. The more politically engaged an individual, the greater the chance that he would donate. These individuals appear to feel that it is imperative for them to make campaign donations in order to ensure that the right people will be elected so that their policy preferences will be translated into actual policies (Barber 231).
   2. The more educated an individual, the greater is the likelihood that he would donate. The reason for this is that highly educated individuals tend to have greater political efficacy (Barber 231).

• The better the economic status of a person, the more likely he will donate. This is due to the fact that the greater the economic status of a person, the greater is his stake in the government. A candidate who is a liberal may be in favour of making the taxation system progressive and this may be disadvantageous for the middle and upper class (Barber 232).

1. The older a person, the greater the chance that he will donate. The reason for this is that older generation is still more politically involved (Barber 232).

1. Power of donor’s influence
   1. Big-money donors are usually political extremists. Supporters of Democratic Party would have policy preferences that re-institutionalize affirmative action or condone student debt such as the case of Bernie Sanders. On the other hand, supporters of Republican Party would maintain the position that it is prudent for the government to implement tax breaks for companies in order to encourage more enterprises and for the government to abolish the welfare program because it has drastically expanded the role of the government. Because candidates largely rely on these donors, they are also pressured to adopt their policy preferences (Stephanopoulos 1461).
   2. Because candidates adopt extreme views, compromise is difficult to attain in either chamber of the Congress. As a result, policy gridlocks occur as evidenced by the year 2019 when Congress was only able to pass 105 laws and majority of these have no national significance (Stephanopoulos 1464 & Keena & Knight-Finley 138).
2. The result of March 2020 primary elections in some congressional districts of California shows that political extremism, while a relevant factor, is not always the reason why donors donate to a particular candidate. The results suggest that winnability remains the main determinant of donating, with the act of donating to candidates being perceived as a form of investment. People donate to people who are likely to win to ensure that their investment will yield return either to have the altruistic feeling that they contributed directly in the electoral process or to actually influence the policy-making process through the candidate that they supported. Candidates who are either moderate Republican or Democrat receive greater financial support than their progressive rivals.
   1. In the 50^th congressional district of California, Democratic candidate Ammar Campa-Najjar generated greater donations than Marissa Calderon and he prevailed in the Democratic primary. He is a known progressive. The election is open seat with the resignation of the incumbent due to corruption charges. However, in the 25^th congressional district which is also an open-seat contest, a moderate Democrat in Christy Smith mobilized greater funding and prevailed in the primary over progressive candidate Cenk Uygur. Both Campa-Najjar and Smith were leading survey polls prior to the primary. Their success at generating campaign funds suggests that progressiveness is not a key determinant in deciding to donate. Rather, it is winnability.
   2. The emphasis on winnability is also evident in districts where there is an incumbent. For example, the sixth congressional district of California the incumbent moderate Democrat Doris Matsui generate greater financial support and prevailed in the election over the progressive Benjamin Emard. Her incumbency is interpreted as strong indicator winnability, as established in the literature. In the fourth congressional district, on the other hand, the candidate receiving larger donations, Tom McClintock, is both an incumbent and a hardline conservative and foremost supporter of President Donald Trump.

• Conclusion
  1. There are various reasons why people donate, but for large-money donors the main motivation is the desire to influence policy-making in order to translate their policy preferences into actual policies that are favourable to their interests. Perceived as an investment, donors prefer to support a candidate that has a greater chance of winning regardless of whether the candidate is a moderate or progressive member of his party.

Works Cited

Barber, Michael J. “Representing the preferences of donors, partisans, and voters in the US             Senate.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80.S1 (2016): 225-249.

Culberson, Tyler, Michael P. McDonald, and Suzanne M. Robbins. “Small Donors in             Congressional Elections.” American Politics Research 47.5 (2019): 970-999.

Keena, Alex, and Misty Knight-Finley. “Are Small Donors Polarizing? A Longitudinal Study of             the Senate.” Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 18.2 (2019): 132-144.

Miller, Ben. “Protecting the Viability of the Small Donor in Modern Elections.” Ark. L. Rev. 70        (2017): 57.

Ostrander, Jason A., et al. “Collective power to create political change: Increasing the political           efficacy and engagement of social workers.” Journal of Policy Practice 16.3 (2017): 261-     275.

Powell, Eleanor Neff, and Justin Grimmer. “Money in exile: Campaign contributions and      committee access.” The Journal of Politics 78.4 (2016): 974-988.

Stephanopoulos, Nicholas O. “Aligning campaign finance law.” Virginia Law Review (2015):            1425-1500.