Sanders & Clinton Campaign Donor Behavior Analysis

Audiences on both sides of the political spectrum are increasingly disenchanted with the world of political campaigns, and more specifically — how they are funded. Anti-establishment candidates have emerged in both parties, both of whom are financing their campaigns by unconventional means. Whether it be Trump loaning funds to his campaign or Sanders rejecting the use of Super PACs, the 2016 presidential elections have been a year of rejecting campaign finance norms. For those lamenting the broken state of campaign finance in a post Citizen’s United era, this election year has been one to celebrate. Democratic Presidential nominee Bernie Sander’s campaign operates on the assumption many people are making small donations — contradicting the political fundraising model used by many presidential hopefuls including President Obama and current nominee Hillary Clinton. However, if a true shift in campaign donor behavior is underway, an in-depth analysis of both Democratic campaigns is needed. Using data provided by Sanders’ and Clinton’s campaigns to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) combined with assumptions based on the current political climate, this report seeks to dissect this new wave of though in campaign finance to see if general opinion lines up with reality.

Before delving into the mathematical processes used to dissect the two campaign’s FEC data, it is necessary to outline the political assumptions the data will be juxtaposed against. Sander’s grassroots model relies on small donations from an ever growing support base starting in October. Sanders is mobilizing a voting base of primarily new voters, meaning his increasing support does not take away from Clinton’s base. In contrast, Clinton’s support base remains constant. Clinton donors are more likely to max out at the 2,700 dollar FEC limit for the primary — as opposed to Sanders’ supporters. These assumptions are drawn from a rudimentary level of understanding of modern day politics and the campaigns’ differing philosophies, and although not entirely concrete, provide a foundation on which to begin research.

The FEC campaign finance reports disclose information in several groupings — date, employer, and zip code. Initially, it is vital to gauge both campaigns’ donations over time. Therefore each campaign’s donations by day had to be charted with a trend line (see figures 1 and 2). However, the FEC does not give a metric to gauge support so there needed to be some extrapolation. Based on press releases from both campaigns, the average donation to Sanders was $27, and $50 t0 Clinton. From there, donations by employer were divided those averages — the closest metric to number of individuals provided by the FEC. From here, the data was processed into four categories — Percent change in donation, donors, average donation, and number of donors (See Figure 3).

Fig. 1 —

Fig. 2 —

Following the nature of the data process, the results have to follow the same kinds of assumptions outlined earlier. The Hillary campaign saw a spike in donations from October to November and a slight decrease into December, indicating many people were on board early and maxing out for the primary (see Figure 3). The increase into January indicates primary season coming into full swing, and the average formal donation and number of donors remain almost completely constant (see Figures 4 and 5). Clinton’s data confirms what one would assume of a candidate with a presidential last name and four years in the Executive Branch — her support base is there for her in droves, pocketbooks in hand.

Fig. 3 — Hillary Clinton Donor Behavior Chart

Fig. 4 —

Fig. 5 —

The Sanders’ campaign data shows a steady climb in donations and donors as the primary season progressed. However, this growth in donors reached its peak in between November and December. From October to December, the rate of change in donation size and donor base remain closely linked (see Figure 6). The expectation to a decrease in donation size in January would be a decrease in donors. Except, the opposite happened — the number of donors fell by 7% and donation size grew by 70%. Although Clinton’s donations also grew in January as a result of primary season being well underway, however this exceptional a deviation is unique. Similar to Clinton’s early spikes in October, a spike in January means people are maxing out their donations and increasing financial support. For a campaign without a Super PAC and a support base that rejects corporate donations, a spike in donations when primary season goes into full swing could mean supporters see a Sanders win in the future as more and more likely and are willing to increase their fiscal support to make it happen.

Fig. 6 — Bernie Sanders Donor Behavior Chart

In a political climate where rhetoric often obfuscates issues, an in-depth analysis of campaign cash flow is needed to get the realities of campaign finance. Hillary Clinton, with experience in four presidential campaigns, knows campaigns cannot be run on votes alone — hence her campaign’s no nonsense attitude towards fundraising. The Sanders campaign prides itself on its anti-establishment spirit, and the reversal of trends that they believe have soured politics. However the Sanders campaign had to lay off employees to focus resources on much needed primary states. It is important to indicate these changes Sanders’ donor behaviors are not a result of campaign rhetoric. It seems that whatever the sentiment surrounding campaign finance, the reality still hits — campaigns are expensive and donors need to up the ante to remain competitive. For every increasingly politically active generation, there has been an ever decreasing interest in political activism. For Sanders, his audiences dollars could be the litmus test to see if his message will continue well past the news coverage.