Women considering a run for office have long faced questions about whether they can raise enough money to compete. Carol Butler McCormack has worked on campaigns for more than thirty years and understands how funding can affect a candidate’s chances. Recent congressional campaign-finance data shows that many women are outraising men in competitive races. But securing early support and covering campaign costs can still be difficult.
The amount a candidate raises doesn’t explain everything. Who contributes, how much they can afford to give, and which expenses campaign funds can cover also affect who can run. McCormack’s years spent reading campaign budgets give her experience with those practical concerns. An expense that seems small to someone outside a campaign may actually make it harder for a candidate to stay in the race.
How Women Are Fundraising in Competitive Races
The Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) at Rutgers tracks campaign finance for the 2026 election cycle. Its August analysis used data available through July 15 to examine competitive congressional primaries and general elections with at least one woman and one man running. A woman led fundraising in most of those contests.
The results differed by party and chamber. Democratic women raised more on average than Democratic men in competitive House races, while Democratic men averaged more in competitive Senate races. Republican women averaged higher totals than Republican men in competitive House and Senate races.
In a separate nationwide comparison of women candidates, Mary Peltola led among Democratic Senate candidates, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez led among Democratic House candidates. Susan Collins and Young Kim led the corresponding Republican groups.
These figures show that women can raise the money needed to compete in closely watched races. They don’t show how many women struggled to secure early support or decided not to run because they couldn’t afford it. Those experiences also matter when assessing access to public office.
Women Give More Often, but Men Give More Money
CAWP’s September donor report found that women made up about 56 percent of unique donors to congressional candidates. But women contributed 41 percent of the money, compared with 59 percent from men. More women participated, while men gave a larger share of the total dollars.
The figures also varied by party. Women contributed 46 percent of the money given to Democratic candidates and 30 percent to Republican candidates. Black women, Latinas, and Asian American women each contributed about 1 percent of the total.
CAWP’s Kira Sanbonmatsu noted that women remain underrepresented in contributions, even though they make up a majority of donors.
McCormack’s work tracking how women voters move examines another part of women’s political participation. With campaign donations, the question is also how much each person can afford to give. A donor who can contribute the legal maximum to several candidates provides financial support that someone giving $25 may not be able to match, regardless of how committed they are.
Small Donations and Personal Wealth
The 2026 tracker also found differences in how candidates raise money. Women received a higher average share of their funds from donations of $200 or less. Men relied more heavily on their own money. Among competitive races, eight of the ten candidates with the highest share of self-financing were men.
Small donations can provide reliable support, particularly when contributors give again throughout a campaign. But reaching those donors takes time and money. Campaigns need contact lists, digital outreach, staff, and systems to process contributions.
Candidates who can invest substantial personal funds have money available while those fundraising efforts are still getting started. That can make it easier to hire staff and begin reaching voters early.
Using Campaign Funds for Childcare
Childcare is another expense that can affect whether a parent can run for office. Allowing campaign funds to cover it helps candidates attend events, travel, and meet voters without paying every additional care cost themselves.
In 2018, the Federal Election Commission unanimously ruled that Liuba Grechen Shirley, then running for Congress in New York, could use campaign funds for childcare expenses caused by her campaign. It issued a similar ruling for MJ Hegar in Texas the following year. Later advisory opinions addressed other caregiving expenses, including eldercare related to campaigning and official duties.
States have adopted their own provisions. According to the Vote Mama Foundation, 41 states and the District of Columbia authorize campaign funds for childcare. Eighteen states also allow broader dependent-care expenses, such as eldercare.
The foundation documented $700,455.54 in childcare spending by state and local candidates from 2018 through 2025. Spending increased by 1,401 percent over that period.
Those costs may be small compared with advertising spending, but they can matter considerably to a candidate. Evening canvassing, weekend events, and campaign travel can require care that a family wouldn’t otherwise need. Where permitted, using campaign funds can make those commitments easier to manage.
Why Early Campaign Funding Matters
Women’s political networks have long helped candidates build early support. EMILY’s List was founded in 1985 around the idea that early money is like yeast: it helps the rest of the dough rise. Republican groups, including VIEW PAC, Maggie’s List, and Winning for Women, have also built networks to recruit and support women candidates.
Carol Butler McCormack understands what it takes to build a statewide campaign. She managed Debbie Stabenow’s successful 2000 Senate race in Michigan, which made Stabenow the first woman elected to the Senate from the state.
Early funding helps candidates hire staff, contact voters, and show potential supporters that they can compete. It can also help attract endorsements and press coverage, which may make later fundraising easier. Without that initial support, a candidate can struggle to establish themselves before voters start paying attention.
Where Barriers Remain
Women are raising substantial amounts in competitive races, but that success doesn’t remove every financial barrier to running.
Women already participate widely as donors. Giving circles, networks that collect contributions from multiple donors, and donor education could help direct support to candidates earlier. They can’t erase differences in personal wealth, but they can help smaller donations reach campaigns when funding matters most.
Access to fundraising networks also deserves attention. CAWP’s August analysis found that no Black woman congressional candidate led fundraising in any of the groups it examined. Its donor research also showed that Black women and Latinas contributed a small share of total donations. These findings concern different groups — candidates and donors — but both raise questions about access to financial resources and political networks.
Caregiving provisions remain inconsistent, too. Nine states haven’t authorized campaign funds for childcare, and fewer than half allow broader dependent-care expenses. Clearer, more consistent rules would help candidates plan for the costs of running.
Fundraising totals show how candidates already in a race are doing. Understanding who gets the opportunity to run also means looking at early support, personal resources, and the expenses candidates must cover.
About Carol Butler McCormack
Carol Butler McCormack is a Democratic political strategist based in Portland, Oregon, whose work spans federal, state, and local campaigns. Her three decades in Democratic politics include managing the 2006 campaign that defeated Oregon’s Measure 43. She continues to write about turnout, competitive races, and the growing role of women as candidates, voters, and donors.
Also Read: Babson College Shows Women Entrepreneurship Overcoming Gender-Based Challenges
