9
more costly than it would be for those at the other end of the economic strata. Even if citizens at both ends
of the spectrum were to contribute an equal proportion of their income to political causes, the total amount
of money available to distribute by the poorer citizen is less and thus has a smaller overall impact. Lower
income citizens must be more discerning as to where they spread their resources. Contributions to judicial
candidates are not a chief consideration. Only 7% of the contributors reported having a household income
of less than $50,000.
A strong correlation between household income and education level results in a donor pool that is
not only wealthy, but also well educated. Two-thirds of the contributors reported earning advanced college
degrees. As an added element to this analysis, it should be noted that 48% of the contributors indicated that
they were active lawyers.
In regards to racial diversity, both Macomb and Iosco-Oscoda counties have a marginal number of
racial minorities and their numbers dwindle even further when looking at the rolls of contributors. Under
this filter, racial minorities become virtually non-existent. In Macomb County racial minorities represent
7% of the total population but account for only 2% of the contributors.
7
The numbers are starker for the
Iosco-Oscoda counties. Here racial minorities constitute less than 2% of the overall county population and
the donor pool. In both cases, minorities are not only absent from list of donors, but they are completely
absent from the list of office seekers too. No minority candidates appeared in either the primary or general
election contests. This is true despite the creation of two new judgeships and two open seat races due to the
retirements of sitting judges.
Ingham County is a different story. Minorities represent 20% of the county’s population and a
quarter of the donors are minorities too. Proportionally, twice as many black donors are present relative to
the county population. Perhaps the most important factor to consider when explaining this phenomenon is
that unlike the other counties, Ingham County did have racial diversity on its ballot. While the absence of
minority candidates on the ballot and the lack of a sizable minority population can be cited as factors
leading to low minority participation in Macomb and Iosco-Oscoda, this model is inadequate for explaining
the gender discrepancies found within the survey.
The participation gap along gender lines is remarkable. Despite the fact that the county
populations are almost evenly split along gender lines, women only account for 31% of the total
contributors. This gender gap is significantly reduced in Ingham County. Men still represent the majority
of donors. They outpace female donors by 17%. This is significantly less than the 51% gap found in
Macomb County or the 41% gap in Iosco-Oscoda Counties. While an argument can be made that the
presence of two female candidates on the general election ballot helped to draw out female donors in
Ingham County a similar scenario in Macomb County did not result in many female donors participating.
Macomb County had 3 female candidates appear on the general election ballot. Moreover, one of these
candidates, Deborah Servitto, was a ten year incumbent of the court facing certain re-election. However,
the gap between male and female donors is at its largest here.
(Table 1)
Donor Demographics
8
Macomb County
Ingham County
Iosco-Oscoda Counties
2000
Census
Survey
Respondents
2000
Census
Survey
Respondents
2000
Census
Survey
Respondents
Gender
Male 49.0%
75.6%
48.3%
58.8%
49.1%
70.8%
7
This is consistent with other research on minority contribution rates (See Brown et al. 1995).
8
All of the differences between the survey respondents and the Macomb county population are significant
at p<.01. Some columns do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Convention