Skip to content
Contents
The Public Mind

    Type to search. Planned chapters match by title only.

    Chapter 14.4

    The ideology of the donor pool

    Among reliable donors, the share near the middle of the CFscore left-right scale fell from 11.8% in 1980 to 1.2% in 2024, and donors who joined the pool account for most of the fall.

    DraftFigures and numbers may change as the analysis is rebuilt.what is still being checked

    Two checks are not run: the shares do not carry the estimation error of each CFscore, and the effect of platform-era itemization on who enters the pool cannot be tested because the DIME files hold no recipients and no unitemized gifts.

    The share of reliable individual donors with a CFscoreCFscoreA left-right position estimated from whom a donor gives to, or from who gives to a candidate. Negative values are left and positive values are right, and a donor keeps one score across all their giving. within 0.250.25 CFscore units, distance from zeroEstimandhalf-width of the band around zero that counts as the centerWeightsnone (constant)Populationdefinition of the centerPeriodelection cycles 1980-2024SourceDIME of zero fell from 11.8%11.8% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center bandn31,138Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980SourceDIME in 1980 to 1.2%1.2% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center bandn2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME in 2024. A CFscore places a donor on a left-right scale from the donor's giving, with negative scores on the left and positive scores on the right, and a donor is reliable if they gave to at least 88 distinct recipientsEstimandminimum number of distinct recipients for the reliable flagWeightsnone (constant)Populationdefinition of a reliable donorPeriodcareerSourceDIME distinct recipients. Over the same period the median score of active donors went from +0.62+0.62 CFscore unitsEstimandmedian CFscore of active reliable donorsn31,138Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980SourceDIME to −0.98−0.98 CFscore unitsEstimandmedian CFscore of active reliable donorsn2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME, so a pool that was mostly right of zero in 1980 was mostly left of zero in 2024.

    DIME assigns each donor one CFscore for all of their giving, so the measure cannot show a donor moving along the scale, and a change over time in the distribution is a change in who is active. Donors who joined the pool between consecutive cycles account for most of the fall in the share near zero, and the fall holds for every width of the center and every minimum number of recipients checked. The share of candidates near zero was lower in 2020 than in 1980 and higher in 2022 and 2024 than in 2020, on small counts, and a survey measure of self-described moderates changes less over 2006 to 2024. Chapter 14.1, Who donates (planned) asks who gives at all, Chapter 14.3, Occupation and donations (planned) asks how donors' jobs relate to their scores, and Chapter 14.2, The geography of donations (planned) asks where they live.

    How donors and candidates are scored

    The data are the Stanford Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections (DIME) [1], which estimates a score for each donor and each candidate from the same records of who gave to whom [2]. The file covers itemized gifts, which are gifts large enough that the recipient must report the giver by name, in 2323 election cyclesEstimandcount of two-year election cyclesWeightsnone (constant)Populationcycles from 1980 to 2024Periodelection cycles 1980-2024SourceDIME two-year election cycles from 1980 to 2024. A CFscore has no natural unit. For scale, the median Democratic candidate scored −0.96−0.96 CFscore unitsEstimandmedian CFscore of the party's candidatesn1,166Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationDemocratic candidates: House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2024SourceDIME in 2024 and the median Republican candidate +1.35+1.35 CFscore unitsEstimandmedian CFscore of the party's candidatesn1,163Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationRepublican candidates: House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2024SourceDIME, so a band of 0.250.25 CFscore units, distance from zeroEstimandhalf-width of the band around zero that counts as the centerWeightsnone (constant)Populationdefinition of the centerPeriodelection cycles 1980-2024SourceDIME on each side of zero is narrow next to the 2.312.31 CFscore unitsEstimandRepublican median minus Democratic median CFscoreWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationHouse and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2024SourceDIME between those medians.

    A reliable donor gave to at least 88 distinct recipientsEstimandminimum number of distinct recipients for the reliable flagWeightsnone (constant)Populationdefinition of a reliable donorPeriodcareerSourceDIME distinct recipients over the whole career and has a score estimated from that giving. Donors with fewer recipients have less precise scores, and some have a score carried over from the recipient they gave to instead of one estimated from their own giving. Reliable donors were 20.1%20.1% percent of active donorsEstimandshare of active donors who are reliablen154,785Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationall individual donors with a score and an itemized gift in the cyclePeriod1980SourceDIME of the 154,785154,785 donorsEstimandcount of active donors, reliable or notWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationall individual donors with a score and an itemized gift in the cyclePeriod1980SourceDIME donors with a score who were active in 1980 and 36.0%36.0% percent of active donorsEstimandshare of active donors who are reliablen7,043,771Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationall individual donors with a score and an itemized gift in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME of the 7,043,7717,043,771 donorsEstimandcount of active donors, reliable or notWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationall individual donors with a score and an itemized gift in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME active in 2024. The flag is set once from a donor's whole record, so a donor who reached 88 distinct recipientsEstimandminimum number of distinct recipients for the reliable flagWeightsnone (constant)Populationdefinition of a reliable donorPeriodcareerSourceDIME recipients years after first giving counts as reliable in every cycle in which they gave. A donor who joined recently has had less time to reach that number, so the early and late pools are selected by different rules.DIME puts federal and state donors on one scale, so the donor lines cover gifts to state as well as federal recipients, while the candidates in this chapter are federal House and Senate candidates only. The files hold no link from a donor to a recipient and count only itemized gifts. Dollars are in real 2024 dollars.

    The near-zero share fell and the pool's median crossed zero

    Figure 1 shows the distribution of scores among active donors in each cycle. In 1980, 34.9%34.9% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore below zeron31,138Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980SourceDIME of donors were left of zero, and in 2024, 75.7%75.7% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore below zeron2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME. The median crossed zero between 2002 (+0.10+0.10 CFscore unitsEstimandmedian CFscore of active reliable donorsn794,413Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2002SourceDIME) and 2004 (−0.17−0.17 CFscore unitsEstimandmedian CFscore of active reliable donorsn1,033,327Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2004SourceDIME). The share of donors between −0.750.75 CFscore units, distance from zeroEstimanddistance from zero beyond which a donor counts as far left or far rightWeightsnone (constant)Populationouter limit of the interior of the scalePeriodelection cycles 1980-2024SourceDIME and 0.750.75 CFscore units, distance from zeroEstimanddistance from zero beyond which a donor counts as far left or far rightWeightsnone (constant)Populationouter limit of the interior of the scalePeriodelection cycles 1980-2024SourceDIME fell from 45.6%45.6% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the outer limit of zero (center and both sides of it)n31,138Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980SourceDIME to 6.1%6.1% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the outer limit of zero (center and both sides of it)n2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME, so the change reaches donors who lean moderately left or right as well as those nearest zero. By 2024 the distribution has two peaks: 72.1%72.1% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore between -1.3 and -0.7 (0.1-wide bins)n2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME of donors score between −1.3−1.3 CFscore unitsEstimandlower edge of the range around the left peakWeightsnone (constant)Populationranges used to describe the two peaks of the 2024 distributionPeriod2024SourceDIME and −0.7−0.7 CFscore unitsEstimandupper edge of the range around the left peakWeightsnone (constant)Populationranges used to describe the two peaks of the 2024 distributionPeriod2024SourceDIME, and a smaller peak holds 18.4%18.4% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore between 1.3 and 1.7 (0.1-wide bins)n2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME between 1.31.3 CFscore unitsEstimandlower edge of the range around the right peakWeightsnone (constant)Populationranges used to describe the two peaks of the 2024 distributionPeriod2024SourceDIME and 1.71.7 CFscore unitsEstimandupper edge of the range around the right peakWeightsnone (constant)Populationranges used to describe the two peaks of the 2024 distributionPeriod2024SourceDIME.

    Figure 1

    The share of donors near zero fell and donors left of zero became the majority between 1980 and 2024

    CFscores of reliable individual donors active in each election cycle, 1980-2024; a donor counts in every cycle in which they gave

    Show data
    Data for The share of donors near zero fell and donors left of zero became the majority between 1980 and 2024
    Election cycleWeighted byCFscore (bin center)Density
    1980Donors−2.450.000
    1980Donors−2.350.000
    1980Donors−2.250.000
    1980Donors−2.150.000
    1980Donors−2.050.000
    1980Donors−1.950.000
    1980Donors−1.850.000
    1980Donors−1.750.000
    1980Donors−1.650.000
    1980Donors−1.550.000
    1980Donors−1.450.000
    1980Donors−1.350.000
    1980Donors−1.250.000
    1980Donors−1.150.002
    1980Donors−1.050.036
    1980Donors−0.950.242
    1980Donors−0.850.392
    1980Donors−0.750.445
    1980Donors−0.650.469
    1980Donors−0.550.420
    1980Donors−0.450.387
    1980Donors−0.350.334
    1980Donors−0.250.284
    1980Donors−0.150.244
    1980Donors−0.050.237
    1980Donors0.050.240
    1980Donors0.150.217
    1980Donors0.250.225
    1980Donors0.350.246
    1980Donors0.450.258
    1980Donors0.550.270
    1980Donors0.650.319
    1980Donors0.750.408
    1980Donors0.850.478
    1980Donors0.950.635
    1980Donors1.050.877
    1980Donors1.151.052
    1980Donors1.250.907
    1980Donors1.350.310
    1980Donors1.450.058
    1980Donors1.550.004
    1980Donors1.650.001
    1980Donors1.750.000
    1980Donors1.850.000
    1980Donors1.950.000
    1980Donors2.050.000
    1980Donors2.150.000
    1980Donors2.250.000
    1980Donors2.350.000
    1980Donors2.450.000
    1980Dollars−2.450.000
    1980Dollars−2.350.000
    1980Dollars−2.250.000
    1980Dollars−2.150.000
    1980Dollars−2.050.000
    1980Dollars−1.950.000
    1980Dollars−1.850.000
    1980Dollars−1.750.000
    1980Dollars−1.650.000
    1980Dollars−1.550.000
    1980Dollars−1.450.000
    1980Dollars−1.350.000
    1980Dollars−1.250.000
    1980Dollars−1.150.001
    1980Dollars−1.050.016
    1980Dollars−0.950.162
    1980Dollars−0.850.405
    1980Dollars−0.750.482
    1980Dollars−0.650.503
    1980Dollars−0.550.445
    1980Dollars−0.450.384
    1980Dollars−0.350.345
    1980Dollars−0.250.316
    1980Dollars−0.150.258
    1980Dollars−0.050.273
    1980Dollars0.050.233
    1980Dollars0.150.223
    1980Dollars0.250.228
    1980Dollars0.350.256
    1980Dollars0.450.276
    1980Dollars0.550.278
    1980Dollars0.650.309
    1980Dollars0.750.357
    1980Dollars0.850.425
    1980Dollars0.950.628
    1980Dollars1.050.901
    1980Dollars1.151.159
    1980Dollars1.250.900
    1980Dollars1.350.208
    1980Dollars1.450.027
    1980Dollars1.550.002
    1980Dollars1.650.000
    1980Dollars1.750.000
    1980Dollars1.850.000
    1980Dollars1.950.000
    1980Dollars2.050.000
    1980Dollars2.150.000
    1980Dollars2.250.000
    1980Dollars2.350.000
    1980Dollars2.450.000
    1982Donors−2.450.000
    1982Donors−2.350.000
    1982Donors−2.250.000
    1982Donors−2.150.000
    1982Donors−2.050.000
    1982Donors−1.950.000
    1982Donors−1.850.000
    1982Donors−1.750.000
    1982Donors−1.650.000
    1982Donors−1.550.000
    1982Donors−1.450.000
    1982Donors−1.350.000
    1982Donors−1.250.000
    1982Donors−1.150.006
    1982Donors−1.050.038
    1982Donors−0.950.212
    1982Donors−0.850.359
    1982Donors−0.750.426
    1982Donors−0.650.449
    1982Donors−0.550.425
    1982Donors−0.450.384
    1982Donors−0.350.337
    1982Donors−0.250.296
    1982Donors−0.150.253
    1982Donors−0.050.249
    1982Donors0.050.258
    1982Donors0.150.226
    1982Donors0.250.223
    1982Donors0.350.254
    1982Donors0.450.258
    1982Donors0.550.275
    1982Donors0.650.335
    1982Donors0.750.378
    1982Donors0.850.461
    1982Donors0.950.613
    1982Donors1.050.873
    1982Donors1.151.041
    1982Donors1.251.010
    1982Donors1.350.305
    1982Donors1.450.048
    1982Donors1.550.007
    1982Donors1.650.000
    1982Donors1.750.000
    1982Donors1.850.000
    1982Donors1.950.000
    1982Donors2.050.000
    1982Donors2.150.000
    1982Donors2.250.000
    1982Donors2.350.000
    1982Donors2.450.000
    1982Dollars−2.450.000
    1982Dollars−2.350.000
    1982Dollars−2.250.000
    1982Dollars−2.150.000
    1982Dollars−2.050.000
    1982Dollars−1.950.000
    1982Dollars−1.850.000
    1982Dollars−1.750.000
    1982Dollars−1.650.000
    1982Dollars−1.550.000
    1982Dollars−1.450.000
    1982Dollars−1.350.000
    1982Dollars−1.250.000
    1982Dollars−1.150.004
    1982Dollars−1.050.043
    1982Dollars−0.950.165
    1982Dollars−0.850.387
    1982Dollars−0.750.458
    1982Dollars−0.650.474
    1982Dollars−0.550.373
    1982Dollars−0.450.335
    1982Dollars−0.350.292
    1982Dollars−0.250.254
    1982Dollars−0.150.208
    1982Dollars−0.050.193
    1982Dollars0.050.193
    1982Dollars0.150.173
    1982Dollars0.250.186
    1982Dollars0.350.203
    1982Dollars0.450.204
    1982Dollars0.550.251
    1982Dollars0.650.260
    1982Dollars0.750.286
    1982Dollars0.850.355
    1982Dollars0.950.534
    1982Dollars1.050.943
    1982Dollars1.151.443
    1982Dollars1.251.476
    1982Dollars1.350.281
    1982Dollars1.450.025
    1982Dollars1.550.002
    1982Dollars1.650.000
    1982Dollars1.750.000
    1982Dollars1.850.000
    1982Dollars1.950.000
    1982Dollars2.050.000
    1982Dollars2.150.000
    1982Dollars2.250.000
    1982Dollars2.350.000
    1982Dollars2.450.000
    1984Donors−2.450.000
    1984Donors−2.350.000
    1984Donors−2.250.000
    1984Donors−2.150.000
    1984Donors−2.050.000
    1984Donors−1.950.000
    1984Donors−1.850.000
    1984Donors−1.750.000
    1984Donors−1.650.000
    1984Donors−1.550.000
    1984Donors−1.450.000
    1984Donors−1.350.000
    1984Donors−1.250.001
    1984Donors−1.150.008
    1984Donors−1.050.067
    1984Donors−0.950.293
    1984Donors−0.850.422
    1984Donors−0.750.460
    1984Donors−0.650.475
    1984Donors−0.550.446
    1984Donors−0.450.383
    1984Donors−0.350.356
    1984Donors−0.250.288
    1984Donors−0.150.267
    1984Donors−0.050.247
    1984Donors0.050.232
    1984Donors0.150.217
    1984Donors0.250.217
    1984Donors0.350.228
    1984Donors0.450.244
    1984Donors0.550.252
    1984Donors0.650.307
    1984Donors0.750.356
    1984Donors0.850.436
    1984Donors0.950.565
    1984Donors1.050.785
    1984Donors1.150.990
    1984Donors1.251.026
    1984Donors1.350.369
    1984Donors1.450.056
    1984Donors1.550.008
    1984Donors1.650.001
    1984Donors1.750.000
    1984Donors1.850.000
    1984Donors1.950.000
    1984Donors2.050.000
    1984Donors2.150.000
    1984Donors2.250.000
    1984Donors2.350.000
    1984Donors2.450.000
    1984Dollars−2.450.000
    1984Dollars−2.350.000
    1984Dollars−2.250.000
    1984Dollars−2.150.000
    1984Dollars−2.050.000
    1984Dollars−1.950.000
    1984Dollars−1.850.000
    1984Dollars−1.750.000
    1984Dollars−1.650.000
    1984Dollars−1.550.000
    1984Dollars−1.450.000
    1984Dollars−1.350.000
    1984Dollars−1.250.000
    1984Dollars−1.150.006
    1984Dollars−1.050.058
    1984Dollars−0.950.241
    1984Dollars−0.850.434
    1984Dollars−0.750.464
    1984Dollars−0.650.458
    1984Dollars−0.550.377
    1984Dollars−0.450.320
    1984Dollars−0.350.283
    1984Dollars−0.250.236
    1984Dollars−0.150.220
    1984Dollars−0.050.202
    1984Dollars0.050.188
    1984Dollars0.150.186
    1984Dollars0.250.190
    1984Dollars0.350.181
    1984Dollars0.450.200
    1984Dollars0.550.221
    1984Dollars0.650.238
    1984Dollars0.750.300
    1984Dollars0.850.375
    1984Dollars0.950.529
    1984Dollars1.050.912
    1984Dollars1.151.337
    1984Dollars1.251.502
    1984Dollars1.350.311
    1984Dollars1.450.027
    1984Dollars1.550.003
    1984Dollars1.650.000
    1984Dollars1.750.000
    1984Dollars1.850.000
    1984Dollars1.950.000
    1984Dollars2.050.000
    1984Dollars2.150.000
    1984Dollars2.250.000
    1984Dollars2.350.000
    1984Dollars2.450.000
    1986Donors−2.450.000
    1986Donors−2.350.000
    1986Donors−2.250.000
    1986Donors−2.150.000
    1986Donors−2.050.000
    1986Donors−1.950.000
    1986Donors−1.850.000
    1986Donors−1.750.000
    1986Donors−1.650.000
    1986Donors−1.550.000
    1986Donors−1.450.000
    1986Donors−1.350.000
    1986Donors−1.250.000
    1986Donors−1.150.009
    1986Donors−1.050.055
    1986Donors−0.950.228
    1986Donors−0.850.366
    1986Donors−0.750.427
    1986Donors−0.650.453
    1986Donors−0.550.426
    1986Donors−0.450.379
    1986Donors−0.350.348
    1986Donors−0.250.293
    1986Donors−0.150.280
    1986Donors−0.050.266
    1986Donors0.050.255
    1986Donors0.150.240
    1986Donors0.250.240
    1986Donors0.350.257
    1986Donors0.450.279
    1986Donors0.550.293
    1986Donors0.650.334
    1986Donors0.750.400
    1986Donors0.850.478
    1986Donors0.950.602
    1986Donors1.050.806
    1986Donors1.150.945
    1986Donors1.250.942
    1986Donors1.350.339
    1986Donors1.450.055
    1986Donors1.550.006
    1986Donors1.650.001
    1986Donors1.750.000
    1986Donors1.850.000
    1986Donors1.950.000
    1986Donors2.050.000
    1986Donors2.150.000
    1986Donors2.250.000
    1986Donors2.350.000
    1986Donors2.450.000
    1986Dollars−2.450.000
    1986Dollars−2.350.000
    1986Dollars−2.250.000
    1986Dollars−2.150.000
    1986Dollars−2.050.000
    1986Dollars−1.950.000
    1986Dollars−1.850.000
    1986Dollars−1.750.000
    1986Dollars−1.650.000
    1986Dollars−1.550.000
    1986Dollars−1.450.000
    1986Dollars−1.350.000
    1986Dollars−1.250.000
    1986Dollars−1.150.009
    1986Dollars−1.050.055
    1986Dollars−0.950.208
    1986Dollars−0.850.391
    1986Dollars−0.750.428
    1986Dollars−0.650.439
    1986Dollars−0.550.394
    1986Dollars−0.450.354
    1986Dollars−0.350.289
    1986Dollars−0.250.251
    1986Dollars−0.150.234
    1986Dollars−0.050.228
    1986Dollars0.050.214
    1986Dollars0.150.220
    1986Dollars0.250.202
    1986Dollars0.350.216
    1986Dollars0.450.242
    1986Dollars0.550.266
    1986Dollars0.650.282
    1986Dollars0.750.342
    1986Dollars0.850.427
    1986Dollars0.950.588
    1986Dollars1.050.925
    1986Dollars1.151.211
    1986Dollars1.251.253
    1986Dollars1.350.294
    1986Dollars1.450.033
    1986Dollars1.550.003
    1986Dollars1.650.000
    1986Dollars1.750.000
    1986Dollars1.850.000
    1986Dollars1.950.000
    1986Dollars2.050.000
    1986Dollars2.150.000
    1986Dollars2.250.000
    1986Dollars2.350.000
    1986Dollars2.450.000
    1988Donors−2.450.000
    1988Donors−2.350.000
    1988Donors−2.250.000
    1988Donors−2.150.000
    1988Donors−2.050.000
    1988Donors−1.950.000
    1988Donors−1.850.000
    1988Donors−1.750.000
    1988Donors−1.650.000
    1988Donors−1.550.000
    1988Donors−1.450.000
    1988Donors−1.350.000
    1988Donors−1.250.000
    1988Donors−1.150.011
    1988Donors−1.050.078
    1988Donors−0.950.345
    1988Donors−0.850.478
    1988Donors−0.750.516
    1988Donors−0.650.502
    1988Donors−0.550.473
    1988Donors−0.450.404
    1988Donors−0.350.353
    1988Donors−0.250.299
    1988Donors−0.150.287
    1988Donors−0.050.255
    1988Donors0.050.243
    1988Donors0.150.233
    1988Donors0.250.239
    1988Donors0.350.242
    1988Donors0.450.263
    1988Donors0.550.282
    1988Donors0.650.318
    1988Donors0.750.371
    1988Donors0.850.444
    1988Donors0.950.573
    1988Donors1.050.722
    1988Donors1.150.838
    1988Donors1.250.818
    1988Donors1.350.333
    1988Donors1.450.070
    1988Donors1.550.009
    1988Donors1.650.001
    1988Donors1.750.000
    1988Donors1.850.000
    1988Donors1.950.000
    1988Donors2.050.000
    1988Donors2.150.000
    1988Donors2.250.000
    1988Donors2.350.000
    1988Donors2.450.000
    1988Dollars−2.450.000
    1988Dollars−2.350.000
    1988Dollars−2.250.000
    1988Dollars−2.150.000
    1988Dollars−2.050.000
    1988Dollars−1.950.000
    1988Dollars−1.850.000
    1988Dollars−1.750.000
    1988Dollars−1.650.000
    1988Dollars−1.550.000
    1988Dollars−1.450.000
    1988Dollars−1.350.000
    1988Dollars−1.250.000
    1988Dollars−1.150.009
    1988Dollars−1.050.061
    1988Dollars−0.950.291
    1988Dollars−0.850.474
    1988Dollars−0.750.504
    1988Dollars−0.650.492
    1988Dollars−0.550.442
    1988Dollars−0.450.370
    1988Dollars−0.350.325
    1988Dollars−0.250.263
    1988Dollars−0.150.243
    1988Dollars−0.050.221
    1988Dollars0.050.224
    1988Dollars0.150.215
    1988Dollars0.250.200
    1988Dollars0.350.235
    1988Dollars0.450.237
    1988Dollars0.550.253
    1988Dollars0.650.277
    1988Dollars0.750.338
    1988Dollars0.850.420
    1988Dollars0.950.589
    1988Dollars1.050.831
    1988Dollars1.151.047
    1988Dollars1.251.094
    1988Dollars1.350.304
    1988Dollars1.450.037
    1988Dollars1.550.003
    1988Dollars1.650.000
    1988Dollars1.750.000
    1988Dollars1.850.000
    1988Dollars1.950.000
    1988Dollars2.050.000
    1988Dollars2.150.000
    1988Dollars2.250.000
    1988Dollars2.350.000
    1988Dollars2.450.000

    Showing the first 500 of 2300 rows.

    The area under the curves passes from the right of zero to the left: 34.9% of donors were left of zero in 1980 and 75.7% in 2024, and the share within 0.75 of zero fell from 45.6% to 6.1%. Each ridge is one election cycle, 1980 at the top and 2024 at the bottom, and its height is the density of donors per unit of CFscore, on one scale for all ridges. DIME assigns every donor one score for the whole career, so the changing shape is a changing set of active donors. The header names the parties because the median Democratic candidate of 2024 scored −0.96 and the median Republican candidate +1.35; blue and red mark the side of zero of a donor's score and not the donor's party.Note: Scores beyond the ends of the axis are counted in the end bins.Note: Dollars are itemized contributions in real 2024 dollars. Each donor's total in a cycle is capped so that a few very large donors do not set the shape.Source: Stanford DIME v4.0 (Bonica), election cycles 1980-2024; full counts of itemized individual donors, no weights

    The second view of the figure weights each donor by itemized dollars. Weighted that way, the left side holds 35.9%35.9% percent of itemized dollarsEstimandshare of itemized dollars from reliable donors left of zero, each donor capped at $1 millionn31,138Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980SourceDIME of dollars in 1980 and 67.4%67.4% percent of itemized dollarsEstimandshare of itemized dollars from reliable donors left of zero, each donor capped at $1 millionn2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME in 2024, a smaller move than the move in the headcount.

    The near-zero share fell faster after 2002

    Figure 2 follows the share of active donors within 0.250.25 CFscore units, distance from zeroEstimandhalf-width of the band around zero that counts as the centerWeightsnone (constant)Populationdefinition of the centerPeriodelection cycles 1980-2024SourceDIME of zero. It was 11.8%11.8% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center bandn31,138Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980SourceDIME in 1980, 13.0%13.0% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center bandn45,211Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1986SourceDIME in 1986, 9.6%9.6% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center bandn794,413Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2002SourceDIME in 2002, 7.7%7.7% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center bandn1,033,327Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2004SourceDIME in 2004, 6.2%6.2% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center bandn1,425,885Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2008SourceDIME in 2008, 3.4%3.4% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center bandn1,978,112Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2016SourceDIME in 2016, 1.5%1.5% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center bandn3,483,649Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2020SourceDIME in 2020 and 1.2%1.2% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center bandn2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME in 2024. The change from 1980 to 2024 is −10.6−10.6 percentage pointsEstimandchange in the share of active reliable donors within the center bandWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980 to 2024SourceDIME pointsPercentage pointThe unit for the difference between two percentages. A change from one share to another is stated in points, not in percent, so that absolute and relative change are not confused., and −8.4−8.4 percentage pointsEstimandchange in the share of active reliable donors within the center bandWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2002 to 2024SourceDIME of it comes after 2002. Measured against its own level, the share fell by 26%26% percent of the 1986 shareEstimandrelative fall in the share of active reliable donors within the center bandWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1986 to 2002SourceDIME from 1986 to 2002, by 88%88% percent of the 2002 shareEstimandrelative fall in the share of active reliable donors within the center bandWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2002 to 2024SourceDIME from 2002 to 2024 and by 90%90% percent of the 1980 shareEstimandrelative fall in the share of active reliable donors within the center bandWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980 to 2024SourceDIME from 1980 to 2024. The split at 2002 is descriptive, since 2002 has the lowest share of the cycles up to then and every later cycle is lower, and no test for a break was run. After 2002 the share rises in 33 election cyclesEstimandcount of cycles after 2002 in which the donor share is above the share of the cycle beforeWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2004 to 2024SourceDIME cycles, 2006, 2010 and 2014, by no more than 0.30.3 percentage pointsEstimandlargest rise from one cycle to the next in the share of active reliable donors within the center bandWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2004 to 2024SourceDIME points in any of them. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 took effect the day after the 2002 general election and raised the limit on an individual's gift to a candidate from 2003 on [3], so 2004 was the first full cycle under it, and this chapter does not separate its effect from other changes.

    Figure 2

    The share of donors near the center fell from 13.0% in 1986 to 9.6% in 2002, then to 1.2% in 2024

    Percent of active reliable donors with a CFscore within 0.25 of zero, by election cycle

    Show data
    Data for The share of donors near the center fell from 13.0% in 1986 to 9.6% in 2002, then to 1.2% in 2024
    Election cycleShare within 0.25 of zeroActive donors
    198011.8%31,138
    198212.3%25,207
    198412.0%39,460
    198613.0%45,211
    198812.7%70,902
    199011.3%111,512
    199211.0%167,283
    199410.7%197,604
    199610.7%297,838
    199810.1%470,028
    200010.0%598,971
    20029.6%794,413
    20047.7%1,033,327
    20067.8%1,142,451
    20086.2%1,425,885
    20106.6%1,409,984
    20124.6%1,805,776
    20144.8%1,597,010
    20163.4%1,978,112
    20182.5%2,161,252
    20201.5%3,483,649
    20221.4%3,082,400
    20241.2%2,533,588
    The line falls slowly until 2002 and faster after it, and every cycle from 2004 on is below every cycle through 2002. It plots the percent of active reliable donors with a CFscore within 0.25 of zero in each election cycle, and the dashed rule marks 2002.Note: These are full counts of itemized donors, so the line carries no sampling interval. It does not carry the estimation error of each CFscore either.Note: After 2002 the line rises in 3 cycles (2006, 2010 and 2014), by at most 0.3 points. The split at 2002 is descriptive: 2002 has the lowest share of the cycles up to then, and no test for a break was run.Source: Stanford DIME v4.0 (Bonica), election cycles 1980-2024; full counts of itemized individual donors, no weights

    The pool changed in size as well as in shape. The 2,533,5882,533,588 donorsEstimandcount of reliable donors with an itemized gift in the cycleWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME reliable donors of 2024 are 8181 ratio of the 2024 pool to the 1980 poolEstimandcount of active reliable donors in 2024 divided by the count in 1980Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980 and 2024SourceDIME times the 31,13831,138 donorsEstimandcount of reliable donors with an itemized gift in the cycleWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980SourceDIME of 1980. The count of donors near zero rose from 3,6783,678 donorsEstimandcount of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center bandn31,138Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors within the center band active in the cyclePeriod1980SourceDIME in 1980 to 29,44629,446 donorsEstimandcount of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center bandn2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors within the center band active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME in 2024, or 88 ratio of the 2024 count to the 1980 countEstimandcount of near-center donors in 2024 divided by the count in 1980Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors within the center bandPeriod1980 and 2024SourceDIME times, after a peak of 92,46192,461 donorsEstimandhighest count of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center bandn1,409,984Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors within the center band active in the cyclePeriodhighest cycle, 2010SourceDIME in 20102010 yearEstimandcycle with the most near-center donorsWeightsnone (constant)Populationreliable donors within the center bandPeriod1980-2024SourceDIME, so the share fell while the count rose. Weighted by itemized dollars, with each donor's total in a cycle capped at $1 million$1 million real 2024 dollars per donor and cycleEstimandcap applied to each donor's itemized dollars in a cycleWeightsnone (constant)Populationcap on a donor's dollars in the dollar-weighted sharesPeriodelection cycles 1980-2024SourceDIME, the near-zero share was 12.2%12.2% percent of itemized dollarsEstimandshare of itemized dollars from reliable donors within the center band, each donor capped at $1 millionn31,138Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980SourceDIME in 1980, 11.7%11.7% percent of itemized dollarsEstimandshare of itemized dollars within the center band, each donor capped at $1 millionn794,413Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2002SourceDIME in 2002 and 3.4%3.4% percent of itemized dollarsEstimandshare of itemized dollars from reliable donors within the center band, each donor capped at $1 millionn2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME in 2024, and Figure 5 shows it under other caps.

    Donors who joined account for most of the fall

    Because DIME assigns each donor one score, the share near zero can change between two cycles in only one way: donors join the pool or leave it, and the donors active in both cycles keep the same score. Figure 3 splits each change between consecutive cycles into donors who left and donors who joined, and adds the steps from 1980 to 2024. Joiners changed the share by −11.2−11.2 percentage points of the near-center shareEstimandcontribution of donors who joined the pool to the change in the near-center share (average of two orders)Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980 to 2024, summed over 22 cycle-to-cycle stepsSourceDIME points and leavers by +0.6+0.6 percentage points of the near-center shareEstimandcontribution of donors who left the pool to the change in the near-center share (average of two orders)Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980 to 2024, summed over 22 cycle-to-cycle stepsSourceDIME points, which sum to the −10.6−10.6 percentage pointsEstimandchange in the share of active reliable donors within the center bandWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980 to 2024SourceDIME points of the whole period.The split depends on the order of accounting. Removing leavers first credits joiners with −12.8−12.8 percentage points of the near-center shareEstimandcontribution of joiners when leavers are removed firstWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980 to 2024, summed over 22 cycle-to-cycle stepsSourceDIME points and leavers with +2.2+2.2 percentage points of the near-center shareEstimandcontribution of leavers when leavers are removed firstWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980 to 2024, summed over 22 cycle-to-cycle stepsSourceDIME. Adding joiners first credits joiners with −9.6−9.6 percentage points of the near-center shareEstimandcontribution of joiners when joiners are added firstWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980 to 2024, summed over 22 cycle-to-cycle stepsSourceDIME and leavers with −1.1−1.1 percentage points of the near-center shareEstimandcontribution of leavers when joiners are added firstWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980 to 2024, summed over 22 cycle-to-cycle stepsSourceDIME. The figure shows the average of the two orders. A joiner is active in a cycle and not in the one before, which includes donors who return after a gap: 56.6%56.6% percent of joinersEstimandshare of joiners whose first itemized gift was in the cycle they joinedn8,477,665Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors active in a cycle and not in the cycle beforePeriod1982 to 2024, all stepsSourceDIME of joiners were giving for the first time. Online platforms for small gifts, ActBlue (launched in 2004) and WinRed (launched in 2019), may account for part of the entry. The DIME files hold no recipients and no unitemized gifts, so this chapter cannot test how much.

    Figure 3

    Donors who joined the pool account for most of the fall in the near-center share

    Change in the percent of active reliable donors within 0.25 of zero, 1980 to 2024, split into donors who left and donors who joined between consecutive cycles

    Show data
    Data for Donors who joined the pool account for most of the fall in the near-center share
    kindstepvalue
    startPool in 198011.81
    deltaDonors who left0.554
    deltaDonors who joined−11.20
    endPool in 20241.16
    The start bar is the 1980 share and the end bar is the 2024 share. Donors who joined between consecutive cycles change the share by −11.2 points, and donors who left change it by +0.6 points. The split averages two orders of accounting: with leavers removed first, joiners account for −12.8 points, and with joiners added first −9.6 points.Note: Joined means active in a cycle and not in the cycle before, so it includes donors who return after a gap; left is the reverse. Donors active in both cycles keep their score, so they change the share only through their weight in the pool.Note: The steps are summed over the cycle-to-cycle changes from 1980 to 2024. Full counts: no sampling interval.Source: Stanford DIME v4.0 (Bonica), election cycles 1980-2024; full counts of itemized individual donors, no weights

    The donors of 1980 have mostly left the pool. Of the 31,13831,138 donorsEstimandcount of reliable donors with an itemized gift in the cycleWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980SourceDIME reliable donors active in 1980, 5,5095,509 donorsEstimandcount of donors in both poolsWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors active in both 1980 and 2024Period1980 and 2024SourceDIME, or 17.7%17.7% percent of the 1980 poolEstimandshare of the 1980 pool that is also active in 2024n31,138Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980 and 2024SourceDIME, were active in 2024 as well. Figure 4 groups donors by the cycle of their first itemized gift. The near-center share was 11.8%11.8% percent of the group's reliable donorsEstimandshare of the group within the center bandn31,138Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cyclePeriodfirst gift in 1980SourceDIME for the donors of 1980, 8.6%8.6% percent of the group's reliable donorsEstimandshare of the group within the center bandn206,419Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cyclePeriodfirst gift in 2000SourceDIME for those who first gave in 2000, 1.2%1.2% percent of the group's reliable donorsEstimandshare of the group within the center bandn387,766Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cyclePeriodfirst gift in 2012SourceDIME for 2012 and 0.24%0.24% percent of the group's reliable donorsEstimandshare of the group within the center bandn65,445Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cyclePeriodfirst gift in 2024SourceDIME for 2024. The groups that first gave from 1980 to 1988 had between 11.8%11.8% percent of the group's reliable donorsEstimandlowest share within the center band among the groups of 1980 to 1988n31,138Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cyclePeriodfirst gift from 1980 to 1988SourceDIME and 13.4%13.4% percent of the group's reliable donorsEstimandhighest share within the center band among the groups of 1980 to 1988n17,042Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cyclePeriodfirst gift from 1980 to 1988SourceDIME near the center, no group that first gave from 1990 on exceeds 10.1%10.1% percent of the group's reliable donorsEstimandhighest share within the center band among the groups of 1990 to 2024n123,517Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cyclePeriodfirst gift from 1990 to 2024SourceDIME, and no group that first gave from 2010 on exceeds 3.0%3.0% percent of the group's reliable donorsEstimandhighest share within the center band among the groups of 2010 to 2024n232,556Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cyclePeriodfirst gift from 2010 to 2024SourceDIME. The order is not strict, and the figure shows the cycles in which a group sits nearer the center than the group before it.

    Figure 4

    Every group of donors that first gave from 2010 on has 3.0% or less near the center, against 11.8% to 13.4% for the groups of the 1980s

    Reliable donors grouped by the cycle of their first itemized gift: percent within 0.25 of zero (first and second views) and share of each cycle's active pool (third view)

    Show data
    Data for Every group of donors that first gave from 2010 on has 3.0% or less near the center, against 11.8% to 13.4% for the groups of the 1980s
    ViewSeriesCycleShare (%)Donors in the group or pool
    first2 or more198013.457,193
    first2 or more198212.622,786
    first2 or more198413.433,569
    first2 or more198614.433,181
    first2 or more198815.057,515
    first2 or more199011.2113,379
    first2 or more199211.6145,792
    first2 or more199411.2143,470
    first2 or more199611.1252,535
    first2 or more199810.0448,844
    first2 or more20009.7455,270
    first2 or more20028.9573,418
    first2 or more20045.8767,428
    first2 or more20066.9654,817
    first2 or more20084.4963,119
    first2 or more20105.3661,868
    first2 or more20122.7997,742
    first2 or more20144.0658,594
    first2 or more20161.71,297,118
    first2 or more20181.11,198,890
    first2 or more20200.54,346,273
    first2 or more20221.1971,049
    first2 or more20241.0593,408
    first8 or more198011.831,138
    first8 or more198212.111,521
    first8 or more198412.116,963
    first8 or more198613.417,042
    first8 or more198812.729,382
    first8 or more199010.057,044
    first8 or more199210.075,594
    first8 or more19949.772,570
    first8 or more199610.1123,517
    first8 or more19989.0208,027
    first8 or more20008.6206,419
    first8 or more20027.5247,539
    first8 or more20044.3325,622
    first8 or more20064.9256,237
    first8 or more20082.6365,960
    first8 or more20103.0232,556
    first8 or more20121.2387,766
    first8 or more20141.5210,428
    first8 or more20160.5442,260
    first8 or more20180.3441,519
    first8 or more20200.1868,613
    first8 or more20220.3139,196
    first8 or more20240.265,445
    first16 or more198011.222,747
    first16 or more198211.58,088
    first16 or more198411.112,098
    first16 or more198612.312,014
    first16 or more198811.720,702
    first16 or more19909.239,048
    first16 or more19929.050,543
    first16 or more19948.746,220
    first16 or more19969.174,096
    first16 or more19988.0119,247
    first16 or more20007.3110,534
    first16 or more20026.0123,280
    first16 or more20043.0170,687
    first16 or more20063.3123,728
    first16 or more20081.5179,580
    first16 or more20101.7106,925
    first16 or more20120.6191,626
    first16 or more20140.899,944
    first16 or more20160.3183,257
    first16 or more20180.2197,639
    first16 or more20200.1287,030
    first16 or more20220.247,621
    first16 or more20240.118,907
    tenureAll active198011.831,138
    tenureAll active198212.325,207
    tenureAll active198412.039,460
    tenureAll active198613.045,211
    tenureAll active198812.770,902
    tenureAll active199011.3111,512
    tenureAll active199211.0167,283
    tenureAll active199410.7197,604
    tenureAll active199610.7297,838
    tenureAll active199810.1470,028
    tenureAll active200010.0598,971
    tenureAll active20029.6794,413
    tenureAll active20047.71,033,327
    tenureAll active20067.81,142,451
    tenureAll active20086.21,425,885
    tenureAll active20106.61,409,984
    tenureAll active20124.61,805,776
    tenureAll active20144.81,597,010
    tenureAll active20163.41,978,112
    tenureAll active20182.52,161,252
    tenureAll active20201.53,483,649
    tenureAll active20221.43,082,400
    tenureAll active20241.22,533,588
    tenureFirst-time198011.831,138
    tenureFirst-time198212.111,521
    tenureFirst-time198412.116,963
    tenureFirst-time198613.417,042
    tenureFirst-time198812.729,382
    tenureFirst-time199010.057,044
    tenureFirst-time199210.075,594
    tenureFirst-time19949.772,570
    tenureFirst-time199610.1123,517
    tenureFirst-time19989.0208,027
    tenureFirst-time20008.6206,419
    tenureFirst-time20027.5247,539
    tenureFirst-time20044.3325,622
    tenureFirst-time20064.9256,237
    tenureFirst-time20082.6365,960
    tenureFirst-time20103.0232,556
    tenureFirst-time20121.2387,766
    tenureFirst-time20141.5210,428
    tenureFirst-time20160.5442,260
    tenureFirst-time20180.3441,519
    tenureFirst-time20200.1868,613
    tenureFirst-time20220.3139,196
    tenureFirst-time20240.265,445
    tenureRepeat198212.413,686
    tenureRepeat198412.022,497
    tenureRepeat198612.728,169
    tenureRepeat198812.741,520
    tenureRepeat199012.854,468
    tenureRepeat199211.891,689
    tenureRepeat199411.2125,034
    tenureRepeat199611.1174,321
    tenureRepeat199811.0262,001
    tenureRepeat200010.8392,552
    tenureRepeat200210.5546,874
    tenureRepeat20049.3707,705
    tenureRepeat20068.7886,214
    tenureRepeat20087.51,059,925
    tenureRepeat20107.31,177,428
    tenureRepeat20125.51,418,010
    tenureRepeat20145.31,386,582
    tenureRepeat20164.21,535,852
    tenureRepeat20183.11,719,733
    tenureRepeat20202.02,615,036
    tenureRepeat20221.42,943,204
    tenureRepeat20241.22,468,143
    pool1980s1980100.031,138
    pool1980s1982100.025,207
    pool1980s1984100.039,460
    pool1980s1986100.045,211
    pool1980s1988100.070,902
    pool1980s199048.8111,512
    pool1980s199237.9167,283
    pool1980s199429.9197,604
    pool1980s199621.7297,838
    pool1980s199814.2470,028
    pool1980s200012.0598,971
    pool1980s20028.7794,413
    pool1980s20046.71,033,327
    pool1980s20065.71,142,451
    pool1980s20084.51,425,885
    pool1980s20104.11,409,984
    pool1980s20123.01,805,776
    pool1980s20143.01,597,010
    pool1980s20162.21,978,112
    pool1980s20181.72,161,252
    pool1980s20201.13,483,649
    pool1980s20221.03,082,400
    pool1980s20240.92,533,588
    pool1990s199051.2111,512
    pool1990s199262.1167,283
    pool1990s199470.1197,604
    pool1990s199678.3297,838
    pool1990s199885.8470,028
    pool1990s200053.5598,971
    pool1990s200244.5794,413
    pool1990s200433.91,033,327
    pool1990s200630.11,142,451
    pool1990s200823.21,425,885
    pool1990s201022.51,409,984
    pool1990s201216.71,805,776
    pool1990s201416.31,597,010
    pool1990s201612.11,978,112
    pool1990s20189.72,161,252
    pool1990s20206.43,483,649
    pool1990s20226.03,082,400
    pool1990s20245.52,533,588
    pool2000s200034.5598,971
    pool2000s200246.7794,413
    pool2000s200459.31,033,327
    pool2000s200664.21,142,451
    pool2000s200872.31,425,885
    pool2000s201056.91,409,984
    pool2000s201249.91,805,776
    pool2000s201445.21,597,010
    pool2000s201637.51,978,112
    pool2000s201831.02,161,252
    pool2000s202023.93,483,649
    pool2000s202222.13,082,400
    pool2000s202421.32,533,588
    pool2010s201016.51,409,984
    pool2010s201230.41,805,776
    pool2010s201435.51,597,010
    pool2010s201648.21,978,112
    pool2010s201857.52,161,252
    pool2010s202043.83,483,649
    pool2010s202241.63,082,400
    pool2010s202440.12,533,588
    pool2020s202024.93,483,649
    pool2020s202229.33,082,400
    pool2020s202432.12,533,588
    Each point is the share of donors whose first itemized gift came in that cycle who are within 0.25 of zero, counting each donor once. The 1980 group is every donor active in DIME's first cycle. The share is 11.8% for that group, 8.6% for the 2000 group, 1.2% for 2012 and 0.24% for 2024. With a looser filter of 2 or more recipients the 2024 group's share is 0.96%.Note: A donor first seen in 1980 may have given before 1980, because DIME starts in 1980, so the 1980 group includes donors who first gave earlier.Note: The reliable flag needs a minimum number of distinct recipients over the career, so a donor first seen in 2024 counts only after reaching that number within one cycle. Only 2.7% of the donors first seen in 2024 do, against 16.1% of those first seen in 2012.Source: Stanford DIME v4.0 (Bonica), election cycles 1980-2024; full counts of itemized individual donors, no weights

    The second view compares donors giving for the first time with repeat donors. In 2008, repeat donors were 7.5%7.5% percent of active repeat donorsEstimandshare of repeat donors within the center bandn1,059,925Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors active in the cycle and in an earlier cyclePeriod2008SourceDIME near the center and first-time donors 2.6%2.6% percent of first-time donorsEstimandshare of first-time donors within the center bandn365,960Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cyclePeriod2008SourceDIME, and in 2024 the figures were 1.19%1.19% percent of active repeat donorsEstimandshare of repeat donors within the center bandn2,468,143Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors active in the cycle and in an earlier cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME and 0.24%0.24% percent of first-time donorsEstimandshare of first-time donors within the center bandn65,445Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME. Repeat donors fall as well. With one score per donor, the repeat pool changes only through the mix of earlier groups that stay active, and the third view shows that mix: by 2024, 72.2%72.2% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in 2010 or latern2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME of active reliable donors had first given in 2010 or later and 0.9%0.9% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors whose first itemized gift was from 1980 to 1988n2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME from 1980 to 1988. This chapter does not test which groups account for the fall among repeat donors.

    The group of 2024 comes with a caution about selection. A donor counts as reliable only after giving to 88 distinct recipientsEstimandminimum number of distinct recipients for the reliable flagWeightsnone (constant)Populationdefinition of a reliable donorPeriodcareerSourceDIME recipients, so a donor first seen in 2024 must reach that number within one cycle to appear at all. Of the donors first seen in 2024, 2.7%2.7% percent of donors first seen in 2024Estimandshare who are reliable donorsn2,459,713Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationdonors whose first itemized gift was in 2024Periodfirst gift in 2024SourceDIME do, against 16.1%16.1% percent of donors first seen in 2012Estimandshare who are reliable donorsn2,412,170Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationdonors whose first itemized gift was in 2012Periodfirst gift in 2012SourceDIME of those first seen in 2012, and the 65,44565,445 donorsEstimandcount of reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in 2024Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME reliable newcomers are 2.6%2.6% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cyclen2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME of the 2024 pool, against 24.9%24.9% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cyclen3,483,649Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2020SourceDIME of the 2020 pool. The count of reliable newcomers fell from 868,613868,613 donorsEstimandcount of reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cycleWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2020SourceDIME in 2020 to 139,196139,196 donorsEstimandcount of reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cycleWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2022SourceDIME in 2022, so the group of 2022 is affected as well. A single checkout on a platform that splits a gift among several committees could reach the threshold at once, and this chapter does not test how often that happens. Under a filter of 22 distinct recipientsEstimandminimum number of distinct recipients in the loose checkWeightsnone (constant)Populationloosest recipient filter checkedPeriodcareerSourceDIME recipients the 2024 group has 0.96%0.96% percent of the group's donorsEstimandshare of the group within the center bandn593,408Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationdonors with a score from 2 or more recipients whose first itemized gift was in 2024Periodfirst gift in 2024SourceDIME near the center, against 13.4%13.4% percent of active donors in the groupEstimandshare of active donors within the center bandn57,193Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationdonors with a score and 2 or more distinct recipientsPeriod1980SourceDIME for the 1980 group under the same filter, so the lower share among newer donors does not depend on the recipient filter.

    The fall holds across bands, filters and caps

    The width of the center and the minimum of 88 distinct recipientsEstimandminimum number of distinct recipients for the reliable flagWeightsnone (constant)Populationdefinition of a reliable donorPeriodcareerSourceDIME recipients are conventions, and Figure 5 varies each of them. A center of 0.100.10 CFscore units, distance from zeroEstimandhalf-width of the narrow check bandWeightsnone (constant)Populationnarrowest band checkedPeriodelection cycles 1980-2024SourceDIME on each side of zero gives 4.8%4.8% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors within a band of 0.10 around zeron31,138Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980SourceDIME in 1980 and 0.4%0.4% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors within a band of 0.10 around zeron2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME in 2024, and a center of 0.500.50 CFscore units, distance from zeroEstimandhalf-width of the wide check bandWeightsnone (constant)Populationwidest band checkedPeriodelection cycles 1980-2024SourceDIME gives 26.7%26.7% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors within a band of 0.50 around zeron31,138Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980SourceDIME and 2.7%2.7% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors within a band of 0.50 around zeron2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME. Tightening the recipient filter to 1616 distinct recipientsEstimandminimum number of distinct recipients in the strict checkWeightsnone (constant)Populationstrictest recipient filter checkedPeriodcareerSourceDIME recipients gives 11.2%11.2% percent of active donors in the groupEstimandshare of active donors within the center bandn22,747Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationdonors with a score and 16 or more distinct recipientsPeriod1980SourceDIME and 1.3%1.3% percent of active donors in the groupEstimandshare of active donors within the center bandn1,443,230Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationdonors with a score and 16 or more distinct recipientsPeriod2024SourceDIME, and counting every donor with a score, including those whose score rests on few recipients, gives 10.5%10.5% percent of active donors in the groupEstimandshare of active donors within the center bandn154,785Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationall individual donors with a score, projected scores includedPeriod1980SourceDIME and 1.7%1.7% percent of active donors in the groupEstimandshare of active donors within the center bandn7,043,771Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationall individual donors with a score, projected scores includedPeriod2024SourceDIME. The levels depend on the choices and the direction does not.

    Figure 5

    Narrower and wider center bands all show a fall from the 1980s to the 2020s

    Percent of active reliable donors within a band of zero, by election cycle; one choice varied per view

    Show data
    Data for The fall in the near-center share holds for every center band and recipient filter checked, and for dollars once each donor is capped
    Choice variedSeriesElection cycleShare (%)Denominator
    bandBand 0.1019804.831,138
    bandBand 0.1019825.125,207
    bandBand 0.1019844.839,460
    bandBand 0.1019865.245,211
    bandBand 0.1019885.070,902
    bandBand 0.1019904.4111,512
    bandBand 0.1019924.3167,283
    bandBand 0.1019944.1197,604
    bandBand 0.1019964.1297,838
    bandBand 0.1019983.9470,028
    bandBand 0.1020003.9598,971
    bandBand 0.1020023.7794,413
    bandBand 0.1020043.01,033,327
    bandBand 0.1020063.01,142,451
    bandBand 0.1020082.41,425,885
    bandBand 0.1020102.51,409,984
    bandBand 0.1020121.71,805,776
    bandBand 0.1020141.81,597,010
    bandBand 0.1020161.31,978,112
    bandBand 0.1020181.02,161,252
    bandBand 0.1020200.63,483,649
    bandBand 0.1020220.53,082,400
    bandBand 0.1020240.42,533,588
    bandBand 0.1519807.031,138
    bandBand 0.1519827.525,207
    bandBand 0.1519847.239,460
    bandBand 0.1519867.745,211
    bandBand 0.1519887.570,902
    bandBand 0.1519906.6111,512
    bandBand 0.1519926.5167,283
    bandBand 0.1519946.2197,604
    bandBand 0.1519966.2297,838
    bandBand 0.1519985.9470,028
    bandBand 0.1520005.8598,971
    bandBand 0.1520025.6794,413
    bandBand 0.1520044.51,033,327
    bandBand 0.1520064.61,142,451
    bandBand 0.1520083.61,425,885
    bandBand 0.1520103.81,409,984
    bandBand 0.1520122.71,805,776
    bandBand 0.1520142.81,597,010
    bandBand 0.1520162.01,978,112
    bandBand 0.1520181.52,161,252
    bandBand 0.1520200.93,483,649
    bandBand 0.1520220.83,082,400
    bandBand 0.1520240.72,533,588
    bandBand 0.25198011.831,138
    bandBand 0.25198212.325,207
    bandBand 0.25198412.039,460
    bandBand 0.25198613.045,211
    bandBand 0.25198812.770,902
    bandBand 0.25199011.3111,512
    bandBand 0.25199211.0167,283
    bandBand 0.25199410.7197,604
    bandBand 0.25199610.7297,838
    bandBand 0.25199810.1470,028
    bandBand 0.25200010.0598,971
    bandBand 0.2520029.6794,413
    bandBand 0.2520047.71,033,327
    bandBand 0.2520067.81,142,451
    bandBand 0.2520086.21,425,885
    bandBand 0.2520106.61,409,984
    bandBand 0.2520124.61,805,776
    bandBand 0.2520144.81,597,010
    bandBand 0.2520163.41,978,112
    bandBand 0.2520182.52,161,252
    bandBand 0.2520201.53,483,649
    bandBand 0.2520221.43,082,400
    bandBand 0.2520241.22,533,588
    bandBand 0.35198017.331,138
    bandBand 0.35198217.925,207
    bandBand 0.35198417.539,460
    bandBand 0.35198618.645,211
    bandBand 0.35198818.470,902
    bandBand 0.35199016.5111,512
    bandBand 0.35199216.0167,283
    bandBand 0.35199415.7197,604
    bandBand 0.35199615.6297,838
    bandBand 0.35199814.9470,028
    bandBand 0.35200014.7598,971
    bandBand 0.35200214.1794,413
    bandBand 0.35200411.31,033,327
    bandBand 0.35200611.51,142,451
    bandBand 0.3520089.21,425,885
    bandBand 0.3520109.61,409,984
    bandBand 0.3520126.81,805,776
    bandBand 0.3520147.11,597,010
    bandBand 0.3520165.01,978,112
    bandBand 0.3520183.72,161,252
    bandBand 0.3520202.33,483,649
    bandBand 0.3520222.13,082,400
    bandBand 0.3520241.72,533,588
    bandBand 0.50198026.731,138
    bandBand 0.50198227.425,207
    bandBand 0.50198426.739,460
    bandBand 0.50198628.345,211
    bandBand 0.50198828.170,902
    bandBand 0.50199025.9111,512
    bandBand 0.50199224.8167,283
    bandBand 0.50199424.4197,604
    bandBand 0.50199624.1297,838
    bandBand 0.50199823.6470,028
    bandBand 0.50200023.2598,971
    bandBand 0.50200222.2794,413
    bandBand 0.50200417.81,033,327
    bandBand 0.50200618.21,142,451
    bandBand 0.50200814.51,425,885
    bandBand 0.50201015.11,409,984
    bandBand 0.50201210.71,805,776
    bandBand 0.50201411.21,597,010
    bandBand 0.5020168.01,978,112
    bandBand 0.5020186.02,161,252
    bandBand 0.5020203.73,483,649
    bandBand 0.5020223.33,082,400
    bandBand 0.5020242.72,533,588
    recipientsAll donors198010.5154,785
    recipientsAll donors198211.386,670
    recipientsAll donors198411.3131,200
    recipientsAll donors198613.2133,774
    recipientsAll donors198811.4214,446
    recipientsAll donors199010.7380,190
    recipientsAll donors199210.4530,583
    recipientsAll donors19949.9607,066
    recipientsAll donors19969.6975,342
    recipientsAll donors19988.91,682,818
    recipientsAll donors20009.71,848,013
    recipientsAll donors20029.82,473,213
    recipientsAll donors20047.63,033,682
    recipientsAll donors20068.43,259,135
    recipientsAll donors20086.34,076,013
    recipientsAll donors20107.13,815,085
    recipientsAll donors20125.04,663,505
    recipientsAll donors20145.64,121,821
    recipientsAll donors20163.55,905,547
    recipientsAll donors20183.05,021,757
    recipientsAll donors20201.014,302,588
    recipientsAll donors20221.38,692,636
    recipientsAll donors20241.77,043,771
    recipients_table2 or more198013.457,193
    recipients_table2 or more198212.643,044
    recipients_table2 or more198412.867,054
    recipients_table2 or more198613.873,140
    recipients_table2 or more198814.3117,042
    recipients_table2 or more199012.2188,933
    recipients_table2 or more199212.0279,329
    recipients_table2 or more199411.5319,777
    recipients_table2 or more199611.3494,892
    recipients_table2 or more199810.6811,919
    recipients_table2 or more200010.51,000,415
    recipients_table2 or more200210.11,330,550
    recipients_table2 or more20047.91,747,923
    recipients_table2 or more20068.41,877,694
    recipients_table2 or more20086.52,439,648
    recipients_table2 or more20107.22,300,985
    recipients_table2 or more20124.92,988,603
    recipients_table2 or more20145.52,604,742
    recipients_table2 or more20163.63,494,075
    recipients_table2 or more20182.83,568,065
    recipients_table2 or more20201.48,698,567
    recipients_table2 or more20221.46,146,958
    recipients_table2 or more20241.35,034,842
    recipients_table4 or more198012.641,298
    recipients_table4 or more198212.533,193
    recipients_table4 or more198412.552,204
    recipients_table4 or more198613.458,793
    recipients_table4 or more198813.492,400
    recipients_table4 or more199011.8146,931
    recipients_table4 or more199211.6219,442
    recipients_table4 or more199411.1258,365
    recipients_table4 or more199611.1399,999
    recipients_table4 or more199810.5648,297
    recipients_table4 or more200010.4831,167
    recipients_table4 or more200210.01,123,133
    recipients_table4 or more20048.01,441,691
    recipients_table4 or more20068.31,611,590
    recipients_table4 or more20086.62,032,932
    recipients_table4 or more20107.01,982,381
    recipients_table4 or more20124.82,559,273
    recipients_table4 or more20145.22,197,539
    recipients_table4 or more20163.52,875,282
    recipients_table4 or more20182.62,992,976
    recipients_table4 or more20201.45,984,589
    recipients_table4 or more20221.34,732,218
    recipients_table4 or more20241.23,824,633
    recipients8 or more198011.831,138
    recipients8 or more198212.325,207
    recipients8 or more198412.039,460
    recipients8 or more198613.045,211
    recipients8 or more198812.770,902
    recipients8 or more199011.3111,512
    recipients8 or more199211.0167,283
    recipients8 or more199410.7197,604
    recipients8 or more199610.7297,838
    recipients8 or more199810.1470,028
    recipients8 or more200010.0598,971
    recipients8 or more20029.6794,413
    recipients8 or more20047.71,033,327
    recipients8 or more20067.81,142,451
    recipients8 or more20086.21,425,885
    recipients8 or more20106.61,409,984
    recipients8 or more20124.61,805,776
    recipients8 or more20144.81,597,010
    recipients8 or more20163.41,978,112
    recipients8 or more20182.52,161,252
    recipients8 or more20201.53,483,649
    recipients8 or more20221.43,082,400
    recipients8 or more20241.22,533,588
    recipients_table12 or more198011.426,188
    recipients_table12 or more198211.921,167
    recipients_table12 or more198411.633,259
    recipients_table12 or more198612.538,114
    recipients_table12 or more198812.259,899
    recipients_table12 or more199011.093,515
    recipients_table12 or more199210.5139,520
    recipients_table12 or more199410.3163,612
    recipients_table12 or more199610.3242,380
    recipients_table12 or more19989.8374,206
    recipients_table12 or more20009.6472,789
    recipients_table12 or more20029.1614,504
    recipients_table12 or more20047.4798,766
    recipients_table12 or more20067.5876,096
    recipients_table12 or more20086.01,087,790
    recipients_table12 or more20106.21,077,733
    recipients_table12 or more20124.41,375,276
    recipients_table12 or more20144.61,244,871
    recipients_table12 or more20163.41,488,357
    recipients_table12 or more20182.51,655,596
    recipients_table12 or more20201.72,400,789
    recipients_table12 or more20221.52,216,874
    recipients_table12 or more20241.21,863,305
    recipients16 or more198011.222,747
    recipients16 or more198211.718,579
    recipients16 or more198411.329,149
    recipients16 or more198612.233,418
    recipients16 or more198811.952,412
    recipients16 or more199010.681,075
    recipients16 or more199210.2120,528
    recipients16 or more199410.0140,308
    recipients16 or more199610.0204,428
    recipients16 or more19989.5310,744
    recipients16 or more20009.3388,670
    recipients16 or more20028.8497,712
    recipients16 or more20047.2646,757
    recipients16 or more20067.2705,532
    recipients16 or more20085.8871,757
    recipients16 or more20106.0865,388
    recipients16 or more20124.31,098,706
    recipients16 or more20144.41,011,317
    recipients16 or more20163.41,187,456
    recipients16 or more20182.61,327,072
    recipients16 or more20201.81,793,107
    recipients16 or more20221.61,688,734
    recipients16 or more20241.31,443,230
    capDonors198011.831,138
    capDonors198212.325,207
    capDonors198412.039,460
    capDonors198613.045,211
    capDonors198812.770,902
    capDonors199011.3111,512
    capDonors199211.0167,283
    capDonors199410.7197,604
    capDonors199610.7297,838
    capDonors199810.1470,028
    capDonors200010.0598,971
    capDonors20029.6794,413
    capDonors20047.71,033,327
    capDonors20067.81,142,451
    capDonors20086.21,425,885
    capDonors20106.61,409,984
    capDonors20124.61,805,776
    capDonors20144.81,597,010
    capDonors20163.41,978,112
    capDonors20182.52,161,252
    capDonors20201.53,483,649
    capDonors20221.43,082,400
    capDonors20241.22,533,588
    capNo cap198012.231,138
    capNo cap19829.625,207
    capNo cap198410.039,460
    capNo cap198611.145,211
    capNo cap198811.170,902
    capNo cap199011.5111,512
    capNo cap199210.2167,283
    capNo cap199410.5197,604
    capNo cap19969.4297,838
    capNo cap199812.3470,028
    capNo cap20009.1598,971
    capNo cap200224.5794,413
    capNo cap20048.41,033,327
    capNo cap20067.21,142,451
    capNo cap20087.01,425,885
    capNo cap20107.71,409,984
    capNo cap20124.81,805,776
    capNo cap20146.61,597,010
    capNo cap20164.61,978,112
    capNo cap20183.52,161,252
    capNo cap20201.83,483,649
    capNo cap20222.83,082,400
    capNo cap20246.32,533,588
    capCap $10m198012.231,138
    capCap $10m19829.625,207
    capCap $10m198410.039,460
    capCap $10m198611.145,211
    capCap $10m198811.170,902
    capCap $10m199011.5111,512
    capCap $10m199210.2167,283
    capCap $10m199410.5197,604
    capCap $10m19969.4297,838
    capCap $10m199810.9470,028
    capCap $10m20009.1598,971
    capCap $10m200211.0794,413
    capCap $10m20048.51,033,327
    capCap $10m20068.71,142,451
    capCap $10m20087.01,425,885
    capCap $10m20108.91,409,984
    capCap $10m20125.41,805,776
    capCap $10m20147.31,597,010
    capCap $10m20166.01,978,112
    capCap $10m20184.62,161,252
    capCap $10m20202.43,483,649
    capCap $10m20223.33,082,400
    capCap $10m20243.62,533,588
    capCap $1m198012.231,138
    capCap $1m19829.625,207
    capCap $1m198410.039,460
    capCap $1m198611.145,211
    capCap $1m198811.170,902
    capCap $1m199011.5111,512
    capCap $1m199210.3167,283
    capCap $1m199410.5197,604
    capCap $1m19969.5297,838
    capCap $1m199811.0470,028
    capCap $1m20009.6598,971
    capCap $1m200211.7794,413
    capCap $1m20048.91,033,327
    capCap $1m20069.61,142,451
    capCap $1m20087.31,425,885
    capCap $1m20109.31,409,984
    capCap $1m20125.61,805,776
    capCap $1m20147.71,597,010
    capCap $1m20166.11,978,112
    capCap $1m20184.82,161,252
    capCap $1m20202.43,483,649
    capCap $1m20223.43,082,400
    capCap $1m20243.42,533,588
    capCap $100k198012.331,138
    capCap $100k19829.825,207
    capCap $100k198410.139,460
    capCap $100k198611.245,211
    capCap $100k198811.270,902
    capCap $100k199011.5111,512
    capCap $100k199210.6167,283
    capCap $100k199410.8197,604
    capCap $100k199610.3297,838
    capCap $100k199811.8470,028
    capCap $100k200010.8598,971
    capCap $100k200212.3794,413
    capCap $100k20049.61,033,327
    capCap $100k200610.41,142,451
    capCap $100k20087.71,425,885
    capCap $100k20109.61,409,984
    capCap $100k20126.01,805,776
    capCap $100k20148.21,597,010
    capCap $100k20166.31,978,112
    capCap $100k20184.92,161,252
    capCap $100k20202.33,483,649
    capCap $100k20223.23,082,400
    capCap $100k20243.02,533,588
    sideLeft of zero198017.510,873
    sideLeft of zero198218.48,659
    sideLeft of zero198417.414,647
    sideLeft of zero198619.415,958
    sideLeft of zero198817.128,380
    sideLeft of zero199014.148,231
    sideLeft of zero199212.777,711
    sideLeft of zero199413.384,483
    sideLeft of zero199613.8122,604
    sideLeft of zero199811.8214,822
    sideLeft of zero200011.9271,239
    sideLeft of zero200210.7383,397
    sideLeft of zero20047.9544,413
    sideLeft of zero20067.7626,498
    sideLeft of zero20085.8832,129
    sideLeft of zero20106.4787,647
    sideLeft of zero20123.91,143,079
    sideLeft of zero20144.11,034,897
    sideLeft of zero20162.71,369,414
    sideLeft of zero20181.81,652,669
    sideLeft of zero20201.12,633,734
    sideLeft of zero20221.02,294,760
    sideLeft of zero20240.81,916,881
    sideRight of zero19808.720,254
    sideRight of zero19829.016,544
    sideRight of zero19848.924,806
    sideRight of zero19869.429,244
    sideRight of zero19889.842,493
    sideRight of zero19909.263,248
    sideRight of zero19929.589,526
    sideRight of zero19948.7113,075
    sideRight of zero19968.5175,176
    sideRight of zero19988.6255,107
    sideRight of zero20008.4327,629
    sideRight of zero20028.5410,878
    sideRight of zero20047.5488,759
    sideRight of zero20068.0515,775
    sideRight of zero20086.8593,591
    sideRight of zero20106.8622,156
    sideRight of zero20125.7662,538
    sideRight of zero20146.1561,957
    sideRight of zero20165.0608,559
    sideRight of zero20184.8508,476
    sideRight of zero20202.8849,809
    sideRight of zero20222.4787,550
    sideRight of zero20242.1616,644
    Each line counts reliable donors within a different distance of zero, and the green line, labeled Band 0.25, is the chapter's band. The band of 0.10 falls from 4.8% to 0.4%, the chapter's band of 0.25 from 11.8% to 1.2%, and the band of 0.50 from 26.7% to 2.7%. A wider band gives a higher line, so the levels depend on the band.Note: The recipient filter is set once from the donor's whole record: a donor counts as reliable in every cycle in which they gave, including cycles before reaching the minimum number of recipients.Note: Full counts of itemized donors: no sampling interval.Source: Stanford DIME v4.0 (Bonica), election cycles 1980-2024; full counts of itemized individual donors, no weights

    A change in the balance between left and right does not explain the fall by itself. Among donors left of zero, the share within 0.250.25 CFscore units, distance from zeroEstimandhalf-width of the band around zero that counts as the centerWeightsnone (constant)Populationdefinition of the centerPeriodelection cycles 1980-2024SourceDIME of zero fell from 17.5%17.5% percent of active reliable donors left of zeroEstimandshare of donors left of zero who are within the center bandn10,873Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980SourceDIME to 0.8%0.8% percent of active reliable donors left of zeroEstimandshare of donors left of zero who are within the center bandn1,916,881Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME, and among donors right of zero it fell from 8.7%8.7% percent of active reliable donors right of zeroEstimandshare of donors right of zero who are within the center bandn20,254Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980SourceDIME to 2.1%2.1% percent of active reliable donors right of zeroEstimandshare of donors right of zero who are within the center bandn616,644Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME. The counts of donors near zero rose on each side, from 1,8981,898 donorsEstimandcount of active reliable donors within the center band and left of zeron10,873Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors within the center band on the left of zeroPeriod1980SourceDIME to 16,23416,234 donorsEstimandcount of active reliable donors within the center band and left of zeron1,916,881Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors within the center band on the left of zeroPeriod2024SourceDIME on the left and from 1,7691,769 donorsEstimandcount of active reliable donors within the center band and right of zeron20,254Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors within the center band on the right of zeroPeriod1980SourceDIME to 13,14913,149 donorsEstimandcount of active reliable donors within the center band and right of zeron616,644Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable donors within the center band on the right of zeroPeriod2024SourceDIME on the right, so the fall is in shares.

    Dollar-weighted shares depend on the cap. From 2002 on the capped dollar share is above the donor share, and in 2024 it is 2.92.9 ratio of the dollar share to the donor shareEstimandcapped dollar share within the center band divided by the donor share within the center bandWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME times the donor share, because near-center donors gave more per donor than the others did. The capped share in 2002 is a local high, against 9.6%9.6% percent of itemized dollarsEstimandshare of itemized dollars from reliable donors within the center band, each donor capped at $1 millionn598,971Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2000SourceDIME in 2000 and 8.9%8.9% percent of itemized dollarsEstimandshare of itemized dollars from reliable donors within the center band, each donor capped at $1 millionn1,033,327Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2004SourceDIME in 2004. Without a cap the share is 24.5%24.5% percent of itemized dollarsEstimandshare of itemized dollars from reliable donors within the center band, no capn794,413Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2002SourceDIME in 2002 and 6.3%6.3% percent of itemized dollarsEstimandshare of itemized dollars from reliable donors within the center band, no capn2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME in 2024. The cap binds for 456456 donorsEstimandcount of reliable donors whose itemized dollars in the cycle exceed the capn794,413Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2002SourceDIME of the 794,413794,413 donorsEstimandcount of reliable donors with an itemized gift in the cycleWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2002SourceDIME reliable donors of 2002 and for 358358 donorsEstimandcount of reliable donors whose itemized dollars in the cycle exceed the capn2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME of the 2,533,5882,533,588 donorsEstimandcount of reliable donors with an itemized gift in the cycleWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME of 2024, and this chapter uses the capped series. The dollar share in 2024 is 3.0%3.0% percent of itemized dollarsEstimandshare of itemized dollars within the center band, each donor capped at $100,000n2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME with the lower cap of the figure and 3.6%3.6% percent of itemized dollarsEstimandshare of itemized dollars within the center band, each donor capped at $10 millionn2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME with the higher cap, and both are above the donor share of 1.2%1.2% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center bandn2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME.Without a cap, one record accounts for 55%55% percent of near-center dollarsEstimandshare of the near-center dollars in one record, the single largest near-center donor totaln76,075Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2002SourceDIME of the near-center dollars in 2002 and one donor gave 49%49% percent of near-center dollarsEstimandshare of the near-center dollars in one record, the single largest near-center donor totaln29,446Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME in 2024. The record of 2002 is $1.02 billion$1.02 billion real 2024 dollarsEstimandlargest total of a single near-center donor in the cycle, no capn1Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2002SourceDIME in 2024 dollars for a single donor, 8.68.6 ratio of the largest to the second-largest near-center totalEstimandlargest single near-center donor total divided by the second-largestWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2002SourceDIME times the next-largest near-center total of $118 million$118 million real 2024 dollarsEstimandsecond-largest total of a single near-center donor in the cycle, no capn1Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2002SourceDIME, and it is probably an error in the release.

    The candidate share was lower in 2020 than in 1980

    The same score applies to House and Senate candidates of the two major parties, using the dynamic CFscore, which is estimated period by period, so a candidate's score can differ from one cycle to the next. The candidate figures count candidates with a score, who are 86%86% percent of candidates in the fileEstimandshare of candidates with a dynamic CFscoren1,477Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationHouse and Senate candidates of the two major parties in the DIME candidate file, one record per candidate and cyclePeriodlowest cycle, 1988SourceDIME to 98%98% percent of candidates in the fileEstimandshare of candidates with a dynamic CFscoren2,385Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationHouse and Senate candidates of the two major parties in the DIME candidate file, one record per candidate and cyclePeriodhighest cycle, 2018SourceDIME of the major-party House and Senate candidates in the file in each cycle and 63%63% percent of candidates with under $10,000 in receiptsEstimandshare of candidates with under $10,000 in receipts who have a dynamic CFscoren540Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationHouse and Senate candidates of the two major parties in the DIME candidate file, one record per candidate and cyclePeriodlowest cycle, 1988SourceDIME to 92%92% percent of candidates with under $10,000 in receiptsEstimandshare of candidates with under $10,000 in receipts who have a dynamic CFscoren644Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationHouse and Senate candidates of the two major parties in the DIME candidate file, one record per candidate and cyclePeriodhighest cycle, 2020SourceDIME of those with under $10,000$10,000 dollars of total receiptsEstimandthreshold of total receipts below which a candidate counts as low-receipts in the coverage checkWeightsnone (constant)Populationdefinition of a low-receipts candidatePeriodelection cycles 1980-2024SourceDIME in receipts. Figure 6 shows the share of candidates with a score within 0.250.25 CFscore units, distance from zeroEstimandhalf-width of the band around zero that counts as the centerWeightsnone (constant)Populationdefinition of the centerPeriodelection cycles 1980-2024SourceDIME of zero. It fell from 13.3%13.3% percent of candidatesEstimandshare of candidates with a CFscore within the center bandn1,265Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationHouse and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod1980SourceDIME in 1980 to 2.0%2.0% percent of candidatesEstimandshare of candidates with a CFscore within the center bandn2,543Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationHouse and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2020SourceDIME in 2020, though not in every cycle: it was 10.5%10.5% percent of candidatesEstimandshare of candidates with a CFscore within the center bandn1,271Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationHouse and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod1988SourceDIME in 1988 and 12.9%12.9% percent of candidatesEstimandshare of candidates with a CFscore within the center bandn1,290Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationHouse and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod1990SourceDIME in 1990. The share of seated winners was 16.2%16.2% percent of winnersEstimandshare of general-election winners with a CFscore within the center bandn451Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationseated winners among House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod1980SourceDIME in 1980, 1.5%1.5% percent of winnersEstimandshare of general-election winners with a CFscore within the center bandn469Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationseated winners among House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2020SourceDIME in 2020 and 2.8%2.8% percent of winnersEstimandshare of general-election winners with a CFscore within the center bandn469Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationseated winners among House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2022SourceDIME in 2022, the last cycle with winners coded. The candidate share then rose to 2.6%2.6% percent of candidatesEstimandshare of candidates with a CFscore within the center bandn2,745Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationHouse and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2022SourceDIME in 2022 and 3.1%3.1% percent of candidatesEstimandshare of candidates with a CFscore within the center bandn2,329Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationHouse and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2024SourceDIME in 2024 while the donor share kept falling, so the two lines agree in direction only through 2020. The rise rests on small counts, with 5151 candidatesEstimandcount of candidates with a CFscore within the center bandn2,543Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationHouse and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2020SourceDIME of 2,5432,543 candidatesEstimandcount of candidates with a dynamic CFscoreWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationHouse and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2020SourceDIME candidates in 2020 and 7272 candidatesEstimandcount of candidates with a CFscore within the center bandn2,329Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationHouse and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2024SourceDIME of 2,3292,329 candidatesEstimandcount of candidates with a dynamic CFscoreWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationHouse and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2024SourceDIME in 2024, and among seated winners 77 winnersEstimandcount of general-election winners with a CFscore within the center bandn469Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationseated winners among House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2020SourceDIME of 469469 winnersEstimandcount of general-election winners with a dynamic CFscoreWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationseated winners among House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2020SourceDIME in 2020 and 1313 winnersEstimandcount of general-election winners with a CFscore within the center bandn469Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationseated winners among House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2022SourceDIME of 469469 winnersEstimandcount of general-election winners with a dynamic CFscoreWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationseated winners among House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2022SourceDIME in 2022. The fall is in who ran and raised money, and it does not come only from who won.

    Figure 6

    The share of federal candidates near the center fell from 13.3% in 1980 to 2.0% in 2020 and was 3.1% in 2024

    Percent with a CFscore within 0.25 of zero: reliable donors, House and Senate candidates with a score, and seated winners, by election cycle

    Show data
    Data for The share of federal candidates near the center fell from 13.3% in 1980 to 2.0% in 2020 and was 3.1% in 2024
    Election cycleSeriesShare within 0.25 of zero (%)Donors or candidates
    1980Donors11.831,138
    1982Donors12.325,207
    1984Donors12.039,460
    1986Donors13.045,211
    1988Donors12.770,902
    1990Donors11.3111,512
    1992Donors11.0167,283
    1994Donors10.7197,604
    1996Donors10.7297,838
    1998Donors10.1470,028
    2000Donors10.0598,971
    2002Donors9.6794,413
    2004Donors7.71,033,327
    2006Donors7.81,142,451
    2008Donors6.21,425,885
    2010Donors6.61,409,984
    2012Donors4.61,805,776
    2014Donors4.81,597,010
    2016Donors3.41,978,112
    2018Donors2.52,161,252
    2020Donors1.53,483,649
    2022Donors1.43,082,400
    2024Donors1.22,533,588
    1980Candidates13.31,265
    1982Candidates9.81,349
    1984Candidates10.71,271
    1986Candidates10.71,240
    1988Candidates10.51,271
    1990Candidates12.91,290
    1992Candidates12.41,793
    1994Candidates11.41,787
    1996Candidates9.41,762
    1998Candidates9.31,402
    2000Candidates8.31,443
    2002Candidates10.01,474
    2004Candidates7.81,472
    2006Candidates7.51,525
    2008Candidates8.31,635
    2010Candidates6.82,113
    2012Candidates5.31,957
    2014Candidates4.31,780
    2016Candidates4.71,750
    2018Candidates2.92,336
    2020Candidates2.02,543
    2022Candidates2.62,745
    2024Candidates3.12,329
    1980Winners16.2451
    1982Winners12.1461
    1984Winners13.3459
    1986Winners13.8456
    1988Winners13.2463
    1990Winners16.2470
    1992Winners13.9468
    1994Winners13.4464
    1996Winners9.3452
    1998Winners10.8481
    2000Winners10.0470
    2002Winners9.6478
    2004Winners9.0469
    2006Winners8.4476
    2008Winners11.4474
    2010Winners7.6476
    2012Winners4.7471
    2014Winners4.1468
    2016Winners3.8468
    2018Winners3.1459
    2020Winners1.5469
    2022Winners2.8469
    The candidate line is lower in 2020 than in 1980 and higher in 2022 and 2024 than in 2020, while the donor line keeps falling. Among candidates with a score the share was 13.3% in 1980, 2.0% in 2020, its lowest value, 2.6% in 2022 and 3.1% in 2024. Among seated winners it was 16.2% in 1980, 1.5% in 2020 and 2.8% in 2022, the last cycle with winners coded.Note: Candidate scores are the dynamic CFscore, estimated from the donors who give to each candidate, so the candidate and donor lines rest on the same giving records. The candidate lines cover federal House and Senate candidates only, and the donor line covers gifts to federal and state recipients.Note: The rise after 2020 rests on small counts: 51 of 2,543 candidates in 2020 and 72 of 2,329 in 2024, and among seated winners 7 of 469 in 2020 and 13 of 469 in 2022.Note: Candidates with a score are 86% to 98% of the major-party House and Senate candidates in the file, by cycle. Candidates without a score are not plotted.Note: General-election winners are not coded for 2024 in this DIME release. Full counts: no sampling interval.Source: Stanford DIME v4.0 (Bonica), election cycles 1980-2024; full counts of federal House and Senate candidates, no weights

    One account of the supply of candidates holds that the costs of holding office discourage moderates from running [4]. The DIME candidate file lists candidates who raised money and not people who decided against running, so it cannot test that account.

    Party medians moved apart on both scales

    Candidate scores and donor scores are estimated from the same giving records, so agreement between the donor line and the candidate line is not evidence from two sources. Figure 7 shows the party medians. The median of Democratic candidates went from −0.43−0.43 CFscore unitsEstimandmedian CFscore of the party's candidatesn679Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationDemocratic candidates: House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod1980SourceDIME to −0.96−0.96 CFscore unitsEstimandmedian CFscore of the party's candidatesn1,166Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationDemocratic candidates: House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2024SourceDIME and the median of Republican candidates from +0.97+0.97 CFscore unitsEstimandmedian CFscore of the party's candidatesn586Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationRepublican candidates: House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod1980SourceDIME to +1.35+1.35 CFscore unitsEstimandmedian CFscore of the party's candidatesn1,163Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationRepublican candidates: House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2024SourceDIME, so the gap between them grew from 1.401.40 CFscore unitsEstimandRepublican median minus Democratic median CFscoreWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationHouse and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod1980SourceDIME to 2.312.31 CFscore unitsEstimandRepublican median minus Democratic median CFscoreWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationHouse and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2024SourceDIME, with the Democratic median moving further. The 75th percentile of Democratic candidates, the edge of the party nearest zero, went from −0.06−0.06 CFscore unitsEstimand75th percentile CFscore of the party's candidates, the edge of the party nearest zeron679Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationDemocratic candidates: House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod1980SourceDIME to −0.76−0.76 CFscore unitsEstimand75th percentile CFscore of the party's candidates, the edge of the party nearest zeron1,166Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationDemocratic candidates: House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscorePeriod2024SourceDIME, from inside the band of 0.250.25 CFscore units, distance from zeroEstimandhalf-width of the band around zero that counts as the centerWeightsnone (constant)Populationdefinition of the centerPeriodelection cycles 1980-2024SourceDIME around zero to outside it.

    The other two views use seated members, who won their seats and have a roll-call score. The second view scores them by CFscore and the third by DW-NOMINATEDW-NOMINATEA left-right score for each member of Congress estimated from roll-call votes. Members who vote alike receive similar scores, and the first dimension mostly separates the parties., which comes from roll-call votes and not from donations. The DW-NOMINATE party gap went from 0.630.63 DW-NOMINATE first-dimension unitsEstimandRepublican median minus Democratic median DW-NOMINATE scoren445Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationseated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call scorePeriod1980SourceDIME in 1980 to 0.900.90 DW-NOMINATE first-dimension unitsEstimandRepublican median minus Democratic median DW-NOMINATE scoren461Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationseated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call scorePeriod2022SourceDIME in 2022, but the order of the moves reverses, with the Democratic median going from −0.32−0.32 DW-NOMINATE first-dimension unitsEstimandmedian roll-call score of the party's seated membersn249Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationDemocratic members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call scorePeriod1980SourceDIME to −0.38−0.38 DW-NOMINATE first-dimension unitsEstimandmedian roll-call score of the party's seated membersn222Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationDemocratic members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call scorePeriod2022SourceDIME and the Republican median from +0.31+0.31 DW-NOMINATE first-dimension unitsEstimandmedian roll-call score of the party's seated membersn196Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationRepublican members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call scorePeriod1980SourceDIME to +0.51+0.51 DW-NOMINATE first-dimension unitsEstimandmedian roll-call score of the party's seated membersn239Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationRepublican members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call scorePeriod2022SourceDIME. The CFscore medians of the same seated members went from −0.43−0.43 CFscore unitsEstimandmedian dynamic CFscore of the party's seated members with a roll-call scoren249Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationDemocratic members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call scorePeriod1980SourceDIME to −0.78−0.78 CFscore unitsEstimandmedian dynamic CFscore of the party's seated members with a roll-call scoren222Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationDemocratic members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call scorePeriod2022SourceDIME for Democrats and from +0.94+0.94 CFscore unitsEstimandmedian dynamic CFscore of the party's seated members with a roll-call scoren196Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationRepublican members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call scorePeriod1980SourceDIME to +1.20+1.20 CFscore unitsEstimandmedian dynamic CFscore of the party's seated members with a roll-call scoren239Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationRepublican members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call scorePeriod2022SourceDIME for Republicans, so the two scales disagree about which party moved further, and the difference is not one between candidates and winners. This chapter does not settle which scale is right.In 2022 the CFscore and the roll-call score of seated members correlate at +0.95+0.95 correlation coefficient, from -1 to +1Estimandcorrelation across members of the dynamic CFscore and DW-NOMINATEn461Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationseated House and Senate members with a CFscore and a roll-call scorePeriod2022SourceDIME across both parties, −0.03−0.03 correlation coefficient, from -1 to +1Estimandcorrelation within the party across seated members of the dynamic CFscore and DW-NOMINATEn222Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationDemocratic members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call scorePeriod2022SourceDIME among Democrats and +0.52+0.52 correlation coefficient, from -1 to +1Estimandcorrelation within the party across seated members of the dynamic CFscore and DW-NOMINATEn239Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)PopulationRepublican members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call scorePeriod2022SourceDIME among Republicans, so most of the pooled correlation is the gap between the parties. Earlier work used contribution records to predict roll-call scores [5]. Chapter 1.2, Polarization in Congress (planned) covers the roll-call record itself.

    Figure 7

    In CFscores both party medians moved outward, the Democratic median by more than the Republican median

    Median score and 25th to 75th percentile range of House and Senate candidates by party, by election cycle; other views: seated members by CFscore and by roll-call votes

    CFscore (negative is left, positive is right)

    Show data
    Data for The parties moved apart on both scales, but CFscores show the Democratic median moving further and roll-call scores the Republican median
    ViewPartyElection cycleMedian25th percentile75th percentileCandidates or members
    cfDemocratic1980−0.43−0.67−0.06679
    cfRepublican19800.970.721.12586
    cfDemocratic1982−0.56−0.73−0.24730
    cfRepublican19820.950.731.12619
    cfDemocratic1984−0.55−0.72−0.27695
    cfRepublican19840.960.681.14576
    cfDemocratic1986−0.53−0.71−0.25682
    cfRepublican19860.950.651.15558
    cfDemocratic1988−0.53−0.71−0.27705
    cfRepublican19880.970.661.18566
    cfDemocratic1990−0.50−0.72−0.22696
    cfRepublican19900.940.651.18594
    cfDemocratic1992−0.51−0.74−0.20924
    cfRepublican19920.920.631.17869
    cfDemocratic1994−0.52−0.75−0.21876
    cfRepublican19940.990.701.20911
    cfDemocratic1996−0.62−0.84−0.32884
    cfRepublican19961.010.711.22878
    cfDemocratic1998−0.57−0.80−0.32680
    cfRepublican19981.020.731.24722
    cfDemocratic2000−0.59−0.83−0.35695
    cfRepublican20001.020.741.21748
    cfDemocratic2002−0.59−0.79−0.31724
    cfRepublican20021.000.741.22750
    cfDemocratic2004−0.69−0.92−0.38697
    cfRepublican20041.030.761.25775
    cfDemocratic2006−0.74−0.98−0.41829
    cfRepublican20061.080.811.31696
    cfDemocratic2008−0.71−0.98−0.40859
    cfRepublican20081.090.821.31776
    cfDemocratic2010−0.73−0.97−0.43863
    cfRepublican20101.190.941.391,250
    cfDemocratic2012−0.77−1.00−0.47907
    cfRepublican20121.150.911.361,050
    cfDemocratic2014−0.81−1.00−0.53817
    cfRepublican20141.170.951.36963
    cfDemocratic2016−0.84−1.04−0.57851
    cfRepublican20161.160.941.40899
    cfDemocratic2018−0.96−1.08−0.761,404
    cfRepublican20181.180.921.42932
    cfDemocratic2020−0.98−1.07−0.811,370
    cfRepublican20201.331.111.491,173
    cfDemocratic2022−0.98−1.07−0.771,305
    cfRepublican20221.371.121.521,440
    cfDemocratic2024−0.96−1.06−0.761,166
    cfRepublican20241.351.071.521,163
    cfseatDemocratic1980−0.43−0.62−0.12249
    cfseatDemocratic1982−0.51−0.68−0.24279
    cfseatDemocratic1984−0.45−0.64−0.18259
    cfseatDemocratic1986−0.45−0.61−0.24265
    cfseatDemocratic1988−0.47−0.61−0.29272
    cfseatDemocratic1990−0.43−0.60−0.21284
    cfseatDemocratic1992−0.46−0.62−0.20277
    cfseatDemocratic1994−0.43−0.61−0.21219
    cfseatDemocratic1996−0.50−0.67−0.31207
    cfseatDemocratic1998−0.49−0.66−0.28232
    cfseatDemocratic2000−0.49−0.66−0.26224
    cfseatDemocratic2002−0.50−0.68−0.30220
    cfseatDemocratic2004−0.53−0.72−0.32217
    cfseatDemocratic2006−0.59−0.75−0.35257
    cfseatDemocratic2008−0.54−0.73−0.30276
    cfseatDemocratic2010−0.56−0.75−0.35207
    cfseatDemocratic2012−0.66−0.81−0.46226
    cfseatDemocratic2014−0.61−0.81−0.46197
    cfseatDemocratic2016−0.65−0.81−0.44205
    cfseatDemocratic2018−0.75−0.90−0.53254
    cfseatDemocratic2020−0.77−0.92−0.55237
    cfseatDemocratic2022−0.78−0.93−0.60222
    cfseatRepublican19800.940.701.08196
    cfseatRepublican19820.880.701.04176
    cfseatRepublican19840.880.661.02195
    cfseatRepublican19860.820.591.00186
    cfseatRepublican19880.820.611.03185
    cfseatRepublican19900.840.601.03182
    cfseatRepublican19920.900.691.07188
    cfseatRepublican19940.990.781.17241
    cfseatRepublican19961.000.761.14235
    cfseatRepublican19980.970.731.12237
    cfseatRepublican20000.980.781.13227
    cfseatRepublican20020.970.751.14248
    cfseatRepublican20040.960.751.13246
    cfseatRepublican20060.990.781.12209
    cfseatRepublican20081.050.851.18190
    cfseatRepublican20101.100.881.22266
    cfseatRepublican20121.070.921.19241
    cfseatRepublican20141.080.931.21268
    cfseatRepublican20161.090.881.19260
    cfseatRepublican20181.110.921.22203
    cfseatRepublican20201.181.021.32227
    cfseatRepublican20221.201.051.37239
    dwDemocratic1980−0.32−0.42−0.19249
    dwDemocratic1982−0.32−0.42−0.19279
    dwDemocratic1984−0.31−0.41−0.19259
    dwDemocratic1986−0.32−0.42−0.20265
    dwDemocratic1988−0.32−0.42−0.20272
    dwDemocratic1990−0.32−0.42−0.19284
    dwDemocratic1992−0.32−0.45−0.22277
    dwDemocratic1994−0.38−0.47−0.26219
    dwDemocratic1996−0.38−0.47−0.29207
    dwDemocratic1998−0.38−0.47−0.29232
    dwDemocratic2000−0.38−0.46−0.29224
    dwDemocratic2002−0.38−0.47−0.30220
    dwDemocratic2004−0.38−0.47−0.30217
    dwDemocratic2006−0.37−0.45−0.27257
    dwDemocratic2008−0.35−0.45−0.26276
    dwDemocratic2010−0.40−0.47−0.32207
    dwDemocratic2012−0.39−0.46−0.30226
    dwDemocratic2014−0.40−0.47−0.32197
    dwDemocratic2016−0.39−0.45−0.32205
    dwDemocratic2018−0.38−0.45−0.29254
    dwDemocratic2020−0.38−0.45−0.30237
    dwDemocratic2022−0.38−0.45−0.30222
    dwRepublican19800.310.220.39196
    dwRepublican19820.330.230.40176
    dwRepublican19840.340.240.42195
    dwRepublican19860.340.230.43186
    dwRepublican19880.340.230.44185
    dwRepublican19900.340.230.43182
    dwRepublican19920.380.260.47188
    dwRepublican19940.380.280.49241
    dwRepublican19960.400.310.50235
    dwRepublican19980.380.300.49237
    dwRepublican20000.400.310.50227
    dwRepublican20020.400.300.51248
    dwRepublican20040.410.320.52246
    dwRepublican20060.420.330.53209
    dwRepublican20080.430.340.54190
    dwRepublican20100.450.350.57266
    dwRepublican20120.490.380.58241
    dwRepublican20140.490.370.58268
    dwRepublican20160.490.380.59260
    dwRepublican20180.510.420.61203
    dwRepublican20200.500.400.61227
    dwRepublican20220.510.410.63239
    Lines are party medians and bands run from the 25th to the 75th percentile of each party's candidates. The Democratic median moved from −0.43 to −0.96 and the Republican median from +0.97 to +1.35, so the gap between them went from 1.40 to 2.31. The Democratic 75th percentile, the edge of the party nearest zero, went from −0.06 to −0.76.Note: Bands run from the 25th to the 75th percentile of candidates or members and are not confidence intervals. Full counts: no sampling interval.Note: Roll-call scores (DW-NOMINATE) come with the DIME candidate file for seated members; 2024 winners are not coded.Source: Stanford DIME v4.0 (Bonica), election cycles 1980-2024; full counts of federal House and Senate candidates, no weights

    Earlier work found that members of Congress were more extreme than their constituents and that the median voter was leapfrogged when one House gave way to the next [6]. Chapter 14.5, Candidate extremity and vote share (planned) asks whether candidates far from zero lose vote share.

    Self-described moderates changed less than the donor share

    Donors are a small and self-selected group, so the donor pool does not describe voters. As a coarse comparison, Figure 8 places the near-center donor share next to the share of adults who call themselves moderate on the five-point ideology question of the Cooperative Election Study (CES), each scaled to its own 2006 value so that the lines compare relative change. The survey share is weightedSurvey weightsNumbers that scale each respondent so the sample matches the population on known traits such as age, race, education and region. A weighted average counts a respondent with a large weight for more than one with a small weight., and its interval is a 95% confidence intervalConfidence intervalA range around an estimate that would contain the true value in 95% of repeated samples if the sampling model held. The book reports 95% intervals unless it says otherwise. built from the effective sample sizeEffective sample sizeThe number of equally weighted respondents that would give the same precision as the weighted sample. It is smaller than the raw count when the weights vary a lot, and it sets how wide the confidence interval is. [7]. The donor share fell from 7.8%7.8% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center bandn1,142,451Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2006SourceDIME in 2006 to 1.2%1.2% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center bandn2,533,588Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2024SourceDIME in 2024, a change of −6.7−6.7 percentage pointsEstimandchange in the share of active reliable donors within the center bandWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2006 to 2024SourceDIME points. The survey share was 39.0% (95% CI 38.5% to 39.6%)39.0% percent of respondentsEstimandweighted share who call themselves moderateInterval95% CI 38.5% to 39.6%n34,189Weightsweight (single-wave survey weight)Populationadult respondents to the Cooperative Election Study who placed themselves on the five-point scalePeriod2006SourceCooperative Election Study in 2006, 30.8% (95% CI 30.2% to 31.3%)30.8% percent of respondentsEstimandweighted share who call themselves moderateInterval95% CI 30.2% to 31.3%n54,950Weightsweight (single-wave survey weight)Populationadult respondents to the Cooperative Election Study who placed themselves on the five-point scalePeriod2018SourceCooperative Election Study in 20182018 yearEstimandelection year with the lowest moderate shareWeightsnone (constant)PopulationCooperative Election StudyPeriod2006-2024SourceCooperative Election Study and 35.4% (95% CI 34.7% to 36.1%)35.4% percent of respondentsEstimandweighted share who call themselves moderateInterval95% CI 34.7% to 36.1%n56,384Weightsweight (single-wave survey weight)Populationadult respondents to the Cooperative Election Study who placed themselves on the five-point scalePeriod2024SourceCooperative Election Study in 2024, so it changed by −3.7 (95% CI −4.6 to −2.8)−3.7 percentage pointsEstimandchange in the weighted share who call themselves moderateInterval95% CI −4.6 to −2.8n90,573Weightsweight (single-wave survey weight)Populationadult respondents to the Cooperative Election Study who placed themselves on the five-point scalePeriod2006 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study points from 2006 to 2024.

    Figure 8

    The donor share near the center fell from 7.8% to 1.2% while self-described moderates stayed between 30.8% and 39.0%

    Each series as a percent of its own 2006 value: reliable donors within 0.25 of zero (DIME) and adults who call themselves moderate (CES), by election year

    Show data
    Data for The donor share near the center fell from 7.8% to 1.2% while self-described moderates stayed between 30.8% and 39.0%
    Election yearSeriesPercentIndex (2006 = 100)Interval low (index)Interval high (index)Donors or respondents
    2006Donors7.8100.0n/an/a1,142,451
    2008Donors6.279.4n/an/a1,425,885
    2010Donors6.683.6n/an/a1,409,984
    2012Donors4.658.6n/an/a1,805,776
    2014Donors4.861.3n/an/a1,597,010
    2016Donors3.443.5n/an/a1,978,112
    2018Donors2.532.2n/an/a2,161,252
    2020Donors1.519.7n/an/a3,483,649
    2022Donors1.417.8n/an/a3,082,400
    2024Donors1.214.8n/an/a2,533,588
    2006Moderates39.0100.098.5101.534,189
    2008Moderates35.189.888.291.530,436
    2010Moderates34.889.187.490.852,342
    2012Moderates36.493.191.594.750,564
    2014Moderates37.696.394.798.051,022
    2016Moderates38.197.796.399.159,815
    2018Moderates30.878.877.380.254,950
    2020Moderates33.485.584.187.056,208
    2022Moderates34.588.386.889.855,606
    2024Moderates35.490.688.892.456,384
    The donor line ends 85% below its 2006 level and the survey line 9% below its own, and the survey line dips in 2018. The donor share fell from 7.8% in 2006 to 1.2% in 2024, and the survey share was 39.0% in 2006, 30.8% in 2018 and 35.4% in 2024. The lines measure different things, a position estimated from giving among people who give and a five-point self-label among adults, and the band around the survey line is a 95% interval.Note: This is a coarse comparison of direction. It does not date the change in either series, because the survey series starts in 2006, after part of the donor fall.Note: The donor line is a full count and has no interval. The survey band is model based (Kish effective sample size) and ignores clustering; it is the interval of the survey share divided by the 2006 estimate, so it leaves out the uncertainty of the 2006 estimate itself.Source: Stanford DIME v4.0 (Bonica), election cycles 2006-2024, full counts with no weights; Cooperative Election Study, election years 2006-2024, weighted with the single-wave survey weight

    The two lines measure different things on different scales: a position estimated from giving among people who give, and a label chosen by adults from five options. The comparison shows that, relative to its 2006 level, the donor share fell by 85%85% percent of the 2006 shareEstimandrelative fall in the share of active reliable donors within the center bandWeightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2006 to 2024SourceDIME and the survey share by 9%9% percent of the 2006 shareEstimandrelative fall in the weighted share who call themselves moderateWeightsweight (single-wave survey weight)Populationadult respondents to the Cooperative Election Study who placed themselves on the five-point scalePeriod2006 to 2024SourceCooperative Election Study, and that the survey share had no steady direction. Its largest move is the fall from 38.1% (95% CI 37.6% to 38.7%)38.1% percent of respondentsEstimandweighted share who call themselves moderateInterval95% CI 37.6% to 38.7%n59,815Weightsweight (single-wave survey weight)Populationadult respondents to the Cooperative Election Study who placed themselves on the five-point scalePeriod2016SourceCooperative Election Study in 2016 to 30.8%30.8% percent of respondentsEstimandweighted share who call themselves moderateInterval95% CI 30.2% to 31.3%n54,950Weightsweight (single-wave survey weight)Populationadult respondents to the Cooperative Election Study who placed themselves on the five-point scalePeriod2018SourceCooperative Election Study in 20182018 yearEstimandelection year with the lowest moderate shareWeightsnone (constant)PopulationCooperative Election StudyPeriod2006-2024SourceCooperative Election Study, −7.4 (95% CI −8.2 to −6.6)−7.4 percentage pointsEstimandchange in the weighted share who call themselves moderateInterval95% CI −8.2 to −6.6n114,765Weightsweight (single-wave survey weight)Populationadult respondents to the Cooperative Election Study who placed themselves on the five-point scalePeriod2016 to 2018SourceCooperative Election Study points, which this chapter does not explain. The comparison does not show which changed first, because the survey series starts in 2006, when the donor share had already fallen from 11.8%11.8% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center bandn31,138Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod1980SourceDIME to 7.8%7.8% percent of active reliable donorsEstimandshare of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center bandn1,142,451Weightsnone (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted)Populationreliable individual donors active in the cyclePeriod2006SourceDIME, and it does not show that voters are moderate in any absolute sense. Chapter 1.1, Party and ideology follows how party and ideology line up among survey respondents.

    What these data cannot show

    The figures describe who gave in each cycle. They say nothing about whether any donor's views changed, because DIME fixes each donor's score, and every change over time here is a change in the roster of donors.

    The reliable flag is set once from a donor's whole record, and so is the score, which is estimated from giving after the cycle in which the donor is counted as well as before it. A donor who gave in 1980 and reached 88 distinct recipientsEstimandminimum number of distinct recipients for the reliable flagWeightsnone (constant)Populationdefinition of a reliable donorPeriodcareerSourceDIME recipients years later counts as reliable in 1980, while a donor who joined recently has had less time to reach that number, so the early and late pools are selected by different rules. The checks with other recipient filters show that the direction survives, and they do not remove the difference in career length. DIME starts in 1980, so donors first seen in 1980 include people who gave before it.

    Only itemized gifts are in the file. Gifts below the itemization threshold are absent, and changes in what gets itemized can change who appears in the pool. The codebook is dated late December 2024 and states coverage through the 2024 cycle without saying how complete the filings of that cycle are, so the 2024 pool may be incomplete. The files hold no recipients, so nothing here says whether a donor gave to one party, to both or to candidates near the middle, and nothing says how much of the entry after 2002 came through online platforms.

    A CFscore is an estimate, and the shares carry no allowance for its error. Zero is a point on an estimated scale and not a measured middle of public opinion, so near the center means near zero and does not mean moderate in the sense of a survey answer. Counts of the donors in the release are full counts and carry no sampling interval.

    Candidate scores rest on the same records as donor scores, so only the roll-call check and the survey comparison bring in other sources, and the roll-call check agrees with the CFscores on the size of the party gap and not on which party moved further. The donor lines cover gifts to federal and state recipients and the candidate lines cover federal candidates only. Winners are not coded for 2024, and primary results are coded for only part of the candidates in some cycles, so the chapter does not follow candidates through the primary stage.

    The data are descriptive. They cannot say whether donors' positions shape which candidates run, whether candidates' positions attract donors, or whether both follow something else, such as the sorting of voters by party. Neither donors nor candidates are a sample of voters.


    Data sources

    • DIMEStanford DIME public version 4.0: individual donors (contributor CFscores, active cycles, itemized dollars) and federal House and Senate candidates (dynamic CFscores, DW-NOMINATE), election cycles 1980-2024Years: 1979-2024 (23 election cycles) · Weights: none (administrative records, no sampling); every itemized donor and every scored candidate counted · License: ODC-BY 1.0, as listed on the Stanford Libraries page (read through a search result, not the license text).
    • Cooperative Election StudyCooperative Election Study, cumulative common content, five-point ideology self-placement, even election years 2006-2024Years: 2006-2024 (every year; self-reported turnout is available in the 10 even years) · Weights: weight (single-wave survey weight) · License: See the provider's terms of use.

    All data sources

    Methods

    Sample: individual donors (not committees) in the Stanford DIME public version 4.0 with an itemized contribution in at least one of the 23 election cycles from 1980 to 2024 (gifts to federal and to state recipients, which the release puts on one scale), and House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore (federal candidates only; 39,532 candidate records after keeping one record per candidate and cycle, the one with the larger receipts). The candidates with a score are 86% to 98% of the major-party House and Senate candidates in the file, by cycle, and 63% to 92% of those with under $10,000 in receipts; candidates without a score are not in any candidate figure. A reliable donor has given to at least 8 distinct recipients over the whole career and has a score estimated from the donor's own giving, not projected from a recipient's score: 31,138 donors active in 1980 and 2,533,588 in 2024. Every donor counts once in each cycle in which they gave. Estimands: the share of active reliable donors within 0.25 of zero on the CFscore scale (the center), and the share of their itemized dollars within that band (real 2024 dollars, deflated with CPI-U annual averages, each donor's total in a cycle capped at $1 million). A donor's CFscore is one number for the whole career, so a change in a share over time is a change in who is active. The entry and exit decomposition splits each cycle-to-cycle change into donors active in both cycles (fixed scores), donors who left and donors who joined, and averages the two orders of removal and addition; the steps sum exactly to the change from 1980 to 2024. Candidate scores are the dynamic (period-specific) CFscore; seated winners are coded through 2022; roll-call scores are DW-NOMINATE first-dimension scores in the DIME candidate file. Sensitivity: center bands of 0.10, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35 and 0.50; recipient filters of none, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 16 or more distinct recipients; dollar caps of none, $10 million, $1 million and $100,000. Weights: none for DIME (administrative records; every itemized donor and every scored candidate in the release is counted). The Cooperative Election Study share of respondents who place themselves in the middle category of the five-point ideology scale uses the single-wave weight, even election years 2006 to 2024. Intervals: DIME shares are full counts of the records in the release and carry no sampling interval, and they do not carry the estimation error of the CFscores. The CES share has a 95% normal interval on the Kish effective sample size, which is model based and ignores clustering; the 2006 to 2024 difference combines the two standard errors in quadrature. In the comparison figure each series and each survey interval end is divided by the series' own 2006 estimate and multiplied by 100. The pool by period of first gift groups each cycle's active reliable donors by the decade of their first itemized cycle (1980 to 1988, 1990 to 1998, 2000 to 2008, 2010 to 2018, 2020 to 2024). The party-median figure adds the 25th to 75th percentile range of the CFscores of seated members who have a roll-call score. Suppression: a share of donors needs at least 100 donors in its denominator (the smallest plotted group has 8,088 donors, 451 candidates or seated winners and 176 seated members of one party); CES cells need at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100. Coverage: winners and primary results are not coded for 2024; unitemized contributions are not in the file; the donor file has no link to recipients. The codebook is dated December 29, 2024 and states coverage of federal elections through the 2024 cycle; it does not say how complete the filings of that cycle are, so the 2024 pool may be incomplete.

    References

    1. Bonica, Adam (2024). Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections: Public version 4.0 [Computer file]. Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, CA. data.stanford.edu/dime
    2. Bonica, Adam (2014). Mapping the Ideological Marketplace. American Journal of Political Science 58(2): 367-386. doi:10.1111/ajps.12062
    3. United States Congress (2002). Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Public Law 107-155, 116 Stat. 81. www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ155/PLAW-107publ155.pdf
    4. Hall, Andrew B. (2019). Who Wants to Run? How the Devaluing of Political Office Drives Polarization. University of Chicago Press. press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo35612049.html
    5. Bonica, Adam (2018). Inferring Roll-Call Scores from Campaign Contributions Using Supervised Machine Learning. American Journal of Political Science 62(4): 830-848. doi:10.1111/ajps.12376
    6. Bafumi, Joseph; Herron, Michael C. (2010). Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress. American Political Science Review 104(3): 519-542.
    7. Kish, Leslie (1965). Survey Sampling. John Wiley and Sons.

    How to cite

    @misc{singh2026theideologyofthedonorpool,
      author = {Singh, Vishal},
      title = {The ideology of the donor pool},
      year = {2026},
      url = {https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool},
      note = {In The Public Mind. Published 30 September 2026.}
    }

    Reading paths