Beth Fukumoto: The Real Gender Gap In Hawaii Politics Is All About Money

Gender Equity in Politics: Examining the Gender Gap in Campaign Funds

Unsurprisingly, a record-low number of candidates produced a record-low turnout in the primary.

Of course, there’s more to it than a lack of choices. Each election Hawaii sits low on any list of state-by-state voter turnout. So, I went looking for something we might be better at — gender equity in politics.

Gender Equity in Hawaii’s Political Landscape

Our federal delegation is evenly split as are our statewide elected positions. That’s well above the national average seeing that women hold only 28% of seats in Congress and 32% of statewide elected executive offices in the United States.

Our Legislature ranks 15th with 38% of our legislative seats held by women, which is above the national average of 33%. We are seventh in the country for gender balance in county offices with 40% of the positions held by women compared to the national average of 32%.

There’s still a lot of work to do, but it is something we can be proud of. So, I thought I’d take it a step further and check the gender balance of campaign donations. It’s a bit worse.

The Gender Gap in Campaign Funds

In the lead-up to this year’s primary, state and local-level women office seekers raised an average of $23,492 per candidate, while men raised twice as much, with an average of $47,124 per candidate. The largest gap between men and women candidates was in contributions from individuals in which women raised only 23% of total individual donations. The smallest gender gap was in contributions from other candidates, in which women received 35% of the total raised. Noncandidate committees and other entities gave 33% of their contributions to women candidates and 67% to men.

Nationally, women in U.S. Senate races raised an average of $8.33 million per candidate compared to an average of $9.27 million raised by men. It’s not a perfect balance, but it’s a lot better than our state races. Even more impressive, women candidates for the U.S. House outraised their male counterparts with an average of $1.29 million to $927,000.

Women Give Less And Receive Less

The difference between our state-level gender gap and the national gap when it comes to money could have multiple causes. Again, our lack of competitive races contributes, as does a general perception that women in Hawaii have more political power than most, given our stellar history of influential women in Congress. Our lack of women donors is also part of the problem.

In a 2024 study on women and political giving, Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics argued that, “Women’s voices are underrepresented in American politics because they are underrepresented as donors.”

According to CAWP, women nationally made up 37% of individual contributors to state-level campaigns in the 2022 election. Collectively, they were responsible for 33% of total individual contributions to state-level candidates.

In the lead-up to Hawaii’s primary, women donors made up 38% of all individual donors. In total, women contributed 32% of all individual donations. Essentially, we’re on par with the national average.

Notably, women candidates who gave to other campaigns contributed only 31% of such donations.

The Big Money Comes From Organizations

For the moment, let’s put aside the needed debate about the ethics of candidates contributing to candidates. Politicians donate money to each other to cement relationships, maintain allies and garner loyalties. If fewer women candidates are donating, fewer women are making use of this particular power-building tactic.

I would also note that individual donations made up 65% of the total funds raised by all candidates before the primary. However, the average donation for an individual was $1,893, while candidates and organizations gave an average of $4,176 and $5,298 respectively. (These figures only include donors who gave more than $100 in aggregate during the election period.)

Why is that important? As frustrating as it may be, big checks usually mean greater influence. That’s a problem when candidates and organizations are giving amounts that are two times the size of an average individual donation.

There’s undoubtedly more to look at with regard to where those donations go and how the organization-to-individual donor ratio differs between challengers and incumbents. But, that’s for another time.

More women donors would likely mean more funding for women candidates. More women candidates means more women in office.

Getting back to gender parity, Hawaii might be better than most other states when it comes to women’s representation in our political offices, but we’re solidly average when it comes to women candidates’ fundraising and women donors’ contributing. If we want equal representation for women in government, we need to realize that parity is interconnected.

More women donors would likely mean more funding for women candidates. More women candidates means more women in office. More women in office means more women in legislative leadership, which would also likely mean more funding for women candidates. And, while money shouldn’t matter, the national average win rate for candidates, regardless of gender, who outraised their opponents is 74%.

Of course, money doesn’t mean everything. House Speaker Scott Saiki lost his seat to Kim Coco Iwamoto despite a more than 8-to-1 fundraising advantage. But, that’s not the norm. Pending a much-needed robust public financing program and serious campaign finance reform, money will continue to matter.

If we want to achieve gender parity in our elected bodies, we need to go beyond recruiting women and begin increasing our support when they do run.

Hawaii fundraising figures are based on Campaign Spending Commission data for the current election cycle, last updated to reflect all late primary contributions reported Aug. 7. Candidate and donor genders are estimates based on data provided by the Social Security Administration and Gender API, as well as candidate websites and other publicly available profiles for both donors and candidates.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic, and public life.
   • Indicator 5.5.1: Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments and local governments.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or economic or other status.
   • Indicator 10.2.1: Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income, by age, sex, and disability.

Analysis

The article discusses the issue of gender equity in politics, specifically focusing on the gender gap in campaign funds raised by male and female candidates. Based on the content, the following analysis can be made:

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The issues highlighted in the article are connected to SDG 5: Gender Equality and SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities. The article discusses the gender gap in campaign funds raised by male and female candidates, which relates to the goal of achieving gender equality in political participation and reducing inequalities.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s content, the specific targets identified are:

• Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic, and public life.
• Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or economic or other status.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, there are indicators mentioned in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets:

• Indicator 5.5.1: Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments and local governments.
• Indicator 10.2.1: Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income, by age, sex, and disability.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: civilbeat.org