Income

Clean Elections small donors to candidates were more likely to come from zip codes with lower and middle class median household incomes than big donors to privately funded campaigns.

The chart below shows that neighborhoods with median household incomes below $50,000 were a larger source of contributions for Clean Elections candidates than for privately funded candidates. In contrast, neighborhoods with median household incomes over $50,000 were a lucrative source of contributions for privately funded candidates. Privately funded candidates received 62 percent of their contributions—nearly twice as much—from these more affluent zip codes, compared to about 32 percent for Clean Elections candidates.

The one exception is Len Munsil’s campaign. He raised a smaller proportion of his Clean Elections contributions from zip codes with median incomes up to $30,000 than did privately funded candidates. However, he raised proportionately more from zip codes with median household incomes in the middle of the range—$30,000 to $75,000—than privately funded campaigns. He also raised proportionately less from zip codes where median household incomes were $75,000 and above. Most striking was how much more, proportionately, the two U.S. Senate candidates raised from zip codes where the median household income was $100,000 or more. Sen. Kyl raised 11.4 times as much from these zip codes as the closest Clean Elections candidate, and Pederson raised 6.4 times as much.

Blue Collar

Clean Elections candidates collected a larger proportion of their contributions from zip codes with high levels of blue collar workers than did privately funded candidates. The chart below shows that zip codes with the highest concentration of blue collar workers were the source of more than 2.4 times more qualifying $5 contributions for Clean Elections candidates, proportionately, as they were for big contributions for privately funded campaigns. In contrast, zip codes with the lowest blue collar populations contributed 11.5 times more, proportionately, to privately funded candidates than they did to Clean Elections candidates.

This chart breaks down the contributions from blue collar zip codes by the 2006 campaigns. Notably, while all the Clean Elections candidates raised more of their contributions proportionately from blue collar neighborhoods, Don Goldwater raised the most at 34 percent of his qualifying funds. In neighborhoods with the lowest concentrations of blue collar workers, the privately funded U.S. Senate candidates collected substantial amounts of their campaign cash—Sen. Kyl, 24 percent, and Pederson, 13 percent. In contrast, all of the Clean Elections candidates raised two percent or less of their qualifying contributions from these neighborhoods.

Home Value

Overall, Clean Elections candidates raised proportionately more of their $5 qualifying contributions in neighborhoods with lower median home values than privately funded candidates did from big donors.

The contrast was particularly stark in zip codes with median house values up to $125,000. In zip codes where median home values were $125,000 to $200,000, the difference between Clean Elections candidates and privately financed candidates was less extreme, but still present. The most telling contrast, however, was in zip codes where median home values were $200,000 and above. Here, privately funded candidates collected 3.4 times more contributions, proportionately, than Clean Elections candidates.

A close up view of the 2006 campaigns shows similar patterns. Again, the most extreme contrast is shown in zip codes where median home value is more than $200,000. Here, all the privately funded candidates raised at least twice as much campaign cash, proportionately, as did Clean Elections candidates.

Poverty

Overall, Clean Elections candidates raised more proportionately—1.9 times as much—than privately funded candidates did from zip codes with high levels of poverty. On the other end of the scale, zip codes with the lowest concentration of people living in poverty were the source of 1.6 times as much campaign cash, proportionately, for privately funded candidates than for Clean Elections candidates.