How Legislators Trade Grassroots Support for Institutional Money

Observers of Sacramento politics are familiar with a recurring pattern: legislators typically raise most of their initial campaign funds from donors already within their personal networks—past local office supporters, friends, family, colleagues, and other close contacts. This initial fundraising effort builds momentum, opening the door to contributions from Sacramento-based committees and lobbyists.

However, once elected, legislators frequently pivot away from their original supporters, directing their fundraising efforts primarily toward institutional donors—such as committees, businesses, unions, and PACs—which are often, though not exclusively, based in Sacramento and connected to legislative interests. This shift raises a crucial question: Are legislators leaving potential contributions untapped by neglecting their initial donor base?

To explore this, we analyzed campaign finance reports for all California Assembly and Senate members elected since 2012. For each legislator, we identified the individual donors (as opposed to institutional donors such as PACs, unions, or corporations) who contributed $100 or more during their first successful campaign. We then tracked these individual donors over subsequent election cycles, examining retention rates, contribution amounts relative to initial donations, and fundraising from new donors.

Table 1: Individual Donor Retention Rates Over Successive Reelections

Note: Percentages show the share of donors from a legislator’s first campaign who contributed again in each subsequent reelection.

Our analysis revealed a sharp decline in individual donor retention after a legislator’s initial election. Legislators initially have about 325 individual donors in their first successful campaign, yet by their first reelection, they typically retain only about 15% of these donors. By the third campaign, retention drops further, highlighting how significantly local and personal support that initially propels legislators into office diminishes over time.

Several factors likely contribute to this dynamic:

1. Local vs. State Influence: Initial supporters often have local interests tied to a candidate’s previous positions, such as city council or county board roles. Once legislators move to the state level, local donors may have fewer incentives to continue contributing.

2. Reduced Local Engagement: Legislators serving in Sacramento spend less time in their home districts, weakening personal relationships and reducing opportunities to sustain and cultivate the original donor base.

3. Perception of Security: In safe legislative seats, initial donor enthusiasm driven by competitive races tends to wane once the legislator’s position appears secure, lowering motivation for continued contributions.

4. Ease of Institutional Fundraising: Raising money from institutional donors—such as committees, unions, and PACs—is often significantly easier and more efficient. These institutional donors, frequently based near the Capitol and with direct legislative interests, simplify fundraising efforts.

Considering these factors, are legislators acting rationally by focusing fundraising efforts predominantly on institutional donors?

Table 2: Potential vs. Actual Fundraising from Individual Donors (Average per Reelection Campaign)

*Potential Contributions assumes each original donor repeats their initial contribution amount.

On average, our analysis suggests that by not maintaining relationships with their initial individual donor base, legislators potentially leave about $192,000 uncollected by their first reelection. It’s worth noting this figure assumes original donors would repeat their initial contribution amounts, a liberal assumption that may somewhat overstate potential contributions.

However, this lost potential is offset—and significantly exceeded—by the average institutional fundraising gains of approximately $450,000 in the same period. Thus, the strategic pivot to institutional donors seems justified from a purely financial standpoint.

Yet, even if financially logical, legislators consistently seeking additional funds should recognize the substantial potential contributions left unclaimed from their original donors. By strategically maintaining relationships with this initial base, legislators could incrementally enhance their fundraising outcomes, making the most of both local and Sacramento-based financial support.

Ultimately, the data underscores a simple truth: while institutional money dominates the landscape, individual donors remain a valuable and underleveraged resource. Legislators who find ways to sustain these early relationships could not only raise more money but also build a more resilient and diversified fundraising base over the long run.