19
donors are largely neutral (42%) in their evaluation of the ideological motivations behind donor
contributions.
There is a strong correlation between the education level of the donor and their endorsement for
ideological based giving. Less educated donors believe more strongly than higher educated donors that
contributors give because they are motivated by ideology. Given their earlier responses regarding the
belief that donors give to stay in good standing, it is not surprising that well-educated donors are skeptical
of the ideological motives for giving. While there may be some situations where the ideological and
material motivations blend together, for the most part the compatibility of these two factors is difficult to
obtain. This is not to suggest that higher educated donors’ ideological beliefs are less meaningful, but
perhaps these donors are more pragmatic in their evaluations. Donors may not automatically lend financial
support to candidates they agree with philosophically, but rather to those who are most likely to win.
As an extension of this reasoning, attorneys, who are decidedly supportive of the idea that donors
give money to stay in good standing with judges, view the idea that donations are ideologically motivated
with considerable skepticism. Only a quarter of them feel that most donors are motivated by ideology. By
contrast the majority of donors with other occupations believe that ideology is the motivation behind
judicial campaign donations and over one third of retirees felt so too. As a point of comparison, nearly half
of the attorneys think that ideology is not the motivation behind most contributions, but fewer than 10% of
the retirees hold a similar opinion.
The level of giving by a donor does indicate a difference in perception regarding the ideological
motivations of donors, but the difference manifests itself by producing a greater distribution of opinion.
Donor size does not result in a significant change in increased support for or against the statement in
question. In other words, small donors were decidedly grouped in the neutral response area (44%). As the
size of the donors increase, the level of neutral responses drops off, but the number of donors who agree or
disagree grows at almost identical rates. At the top end of the spectrum, only a quarter of the large donors
have a neutral response to this issue.
The fact that most ideologues agree with the notion that donors are motivated by ideology is not
surprising, but it is worth noting that a majority of socialites also shared this view. Is it possible that these
socialites are networked in with people who share similar ideological frameworks? If donors surround
themselves with likeminded individuals it is possible that a single ideological position becomes so
pervasive as to render it a secondary motivation. In other words, ideology may be important to socialites,
but its presence is a given. Building networks and connections within a particular ideological framework is
the most important consideration.
Most intimates and investors do not share the opinion that donors are motivated by ideology. It is
easy to see how investors reach this conclusion, but it is more difficult to understand the differences
between socialites and intimates. Perhaps it is connected to the fact that socialites find themselves in social
circles with like-minded ideologically people whereas intimates are tied directly to a particular candidate
and less concerned with ideology as an election consideration and more about the practical concern of
getting their candidate into office. In this regard, their philosophy on giving may be closer to investors.
Donors are feeling pressure to donate money to judicial campaigns and there is a prevailing sense
that donors make these donations so as to stay in good standing with the judges. These realities raise the
question that has caught the attention of the media and researchers; do judicial campaign contributions
threaten the impartiality of judges? This question was posed to the donors and the majority of them agree
that contributions do threaten the impartiality of judges. Only a quarter of the donors disagree with this
evaluation.
While there is a difference of opinion relative to donor size, unlike previous areas of investigation
the difference is not significant. What differences exist, center on the trend of large donors to agree or
strongly agree with this statement as opposed to being neutral. When looking at small donors versus large
Convention