# The ideology of the donor pool: report

Chapter 7.1 of The Public Mind, by Vishal Singh (NYU Stern). Generated from the chapter's data files; the reading version is at https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool. Table n of this report is figure n of the chapter.

## Identification

- Title: The ideology of the donor pool
- Chapter: 7.1 (Part VII, Giving; Votes, giving and places)
- Question: How did the ideological distribution of campaign donors and candidates change between 1980 and 2024?
- Dek: Among reliable individual donors, the share with a CFscore near zero fell from 11.8% in 1980 to 1.2% in 2024, a change in who gives rather than in any donor's score.
- Grain: individuals
- Status: draft
- Published: 2026-09-30
- Updated: not revised
- Data sources:
  - DIME. Stanford DIME public version 4.0: individual donors (contributor CFscores, active cycles, itemized dollars) and federal House and Senate candidates (dynamic CFscores, DW-NOMINATE), election cycles 1980-2024; years: 1979-2024 (23 election cycles); weights: none (administrative records, no sampling); every itemized donor and every scored candidate counted
  - Cooperative Election Study. Cooperative Election Study, cumulative common content, five-point ideology self-placement, even election years 2006-2024; years: 2006-2024 (every year; self-reported turnout is available in the 10 even years); weights: weight (single-wave survey weight)
- Canonical URL: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool
- Report: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/report
- Markdown: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/report.md
- BibTeX key: singh2026theideologyofthedonorpool

```bibtex
@misc{singh2026theideologyofthedonorpool,
  author = {Singh, Vishal},
  title = {The ideology of the donor pool},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool},
  note = {In The Public Mind. Published 30 September 2026.}
}
```

## Principal estimates

The facts the dek and the opening prose cite, in order of appearance.

| Estimand | Population | Period | Value | Interval | n | Weights | Source | Fact id |
| --- | --- | --- | ---: | --- | ---: | --- | --- | --- |
| share of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 | 11.8% |   | 31,138 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME | share_1980 |
| share of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 | 1.2% |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME | share_2024 |
| half-width of the band around zero that counts as the center | definition of the center | election cycles 1980-2024 | 0.25 |   |   | none (constant) | DIME | band |
| median CFscore of active reliable donors | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 | +0.62 |   | 31,138 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME | median_1980 |
| median CFscore of active reliable donors | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 | −0.98 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME | median_2024 |
| minimum number of distinct recipients for the reliable flag | definition of a reliable donor | career | 8 |   |   | none (constant) | DIME | min_recip |

## Findings

Counting donors rather than dollars, the share of reliable individual donors with a CFscore within 0.25 of zero fell from 11.8% in 1980 to 1.2% in 2024. Over the same period the median score of active donors went from +0.62 to −0.98, so a pool that was mostly right of zero in 1980 was mostly left of zero in 2024. DIME assigns each donor one CFscore for all of their giving, so the measure cannot show a donor moving along the scale, and a change over time in the distribution is a change in who is active.

A CFscore places a donor on a left-right scale from the donor's giving, with negative scores on the left and positive scores on the right, and a donor is reliable if they gave to at least 8 distinct recipients. The chapter splits the fall between donors who joined the pool and donors who left it, repeats it with other widths of the center, other recipient filters and dollar weights, and sets it beside the share of candidates near zero and a survey measure of self-described moderates. Planned, Who donates (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/who-donates; planned) asks who gives at all, Planned, Occupation and donations (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/occupation-and-donations; planned) asks how donors' jobs relate to their scores, and Planned, The geography of donations (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-geography-of-donations; planned) asks where they live.

### How donors and candidates are scored

The data are the Stanford Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections (DIME) [1], which estimates a score for each donor and each candidate from the same records of who gave to whom [2]. The file covers itemized gifts, which are gifts large enough that the recipient must report the giver by name, in 23 two-year election cycles from 1980 to 2024. A CFscore has no natural unit. For scale, the median Democratic candidate scored −0.96 in 2024 and the median Republican candidate +1.35, so a band of 0.25 on each side of zero is narrow next to the 2.31 between those medians.

A reliable donor gave to at least 8 distinct recipients over the whole career and has a score estimated from that giving. Donors with fewer recipients have less precise scores, and some have a score carried over from the recipient they gave to instead of one estimated from their own giving. Reliable donors were 20.1% of the 154,785 donors with a score who were active in 1980 and 36.0% of the 7,043,771 active in 2024. The flag is set once from a donor's whole record, so a donor who reached 8 recipients years after first giving counts as reliable in every cycle in which they gave. A donor who joined recently has had less time to reach that number, so the early and late pools are selected by different rules. (Note: DIME puts federal and state donors on one scale, so the donor lines cover gifts to state as well as federal recipients, while the candidates in this chapter are federal House and Senate candidates only. The files hold no link from a donor to a recipient and count only itemized gifts. Dollars are in real 2024 dollars.)

### The near-zero share fell and the pool's median crossed zero

Table 1 shows the distribution of scores among active donors in each cycle. In 1980, 34.9% of donors were left of zero, and in 2024, 75.7%. The median crossed zero between 2002 (+0.10) and 2004 (−0.17). The share of donors between −0.75 and 0.75 fell from 45.6% to 6.1%, so the change reaches donors who lean moderately left or right as well as those nearest zero. By 2024 the distribution has two peaks: 72.1% of donors score between −1.3 and −0.7, and a smaller peak holds 18.4% between 1.3 and 1.7.

Table 1. The share of donors near zero fell and donors left of zero became the majority between 1980 and 2024

The second view of the figure weights each donor by itemized dollars. Weighted that way, the left side holds 35.9% of dollars in 1980 and 67.4% in 2024, a smaller move than the move in the headcount.

### The near-zero share fell faster after 2002

Table 2 follows the share of active donors within 0.25 of zero. It was 11.8% in 1980, 13.0% in 1986, 9.6% in 2002, 7.7% in 2004, 6.2% in 2008, 3.4% in 2016, 1.5% in 2020 and 1.2% in 2024. The change from 1980 to 2024 is −10.6 points, and −8.4 of it comes after 2002. Measured against its own level, the share fell by 26% from 1986 to 2002, by 88% from 2002 to 2024 and by 90% from 1980 to 2024. The split at 2002 is descriptive, since 2002 has the lowest share of the cycles up to then and every later cycle is lower, and no test for a break was run. After 2002 the share rises in 3 cycles, 2006, 2010 and 2014, by no more than 0.3 points in any of them. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 took effect the day after the 2002 general election and raised the limit on an individual's gift to a candidate from 2003 on [3], so 2004 was the first full cycle under it. This chapter does not separate its effect from other changes.

Table 2. The share of donors near the center fell from 13.0% in 1986 to 9.6% in 2002, then to 1.2% in 2024

The pool changed in size as well as in shape. The 2,533,588 reliable donors of 2024 are 81 times the 31,138 of 1980. The count of donors near zero rose from 3,678 in 1980 to 29,446 in 2024, or 8 times, after a peak of 92,461 in 2010, so the share fell while the count rose. Weighted by itemized dollars, with each donor's total in a cycle capped at $1 million, the near-zero share was 12.2% in 1980, 11.7% in 2002 and 3.4% in 2024. Table 5 shows it under other caps.

### Donors who joined account for most of the fall

Because DIME assigns each donor one score, the share near zero can change between two cycles in only one way: donors join the pool or leave it, and the donors active in both cycles keep the same score. Table 3 splits each change between consecutive cycles into donors who left and donors who joined, and adds the steps from 1980 to 2024. Joiners changed the share by −11.2 points and leavers by +0.6 points, which sum to the −10.6 points of the whole period. (Note: The split depends on the order of accounting. Removing leavers first credits joiners with −12.8 points and leavers with +2.2. Adding joiners first credits joiners with −9.6 and leavers with −1.1. The figure shows the average of the two orders. A joiner is active in a cycle and not in the one before, which includes donors who return after a gap: 56.6% of joiners were giving for the first time. Online platforms for small gifts, ActBlue (launched in 2004) and WinRed (launched in 2019), may account for part of the entry. The DIME files hold no recipients and no unitemized gifts, so this chapter cannot test how much.)

Table 3. Donors who joined the pool account for most of the fall in the near-center share

The donors of 1980 have mostly left the pool. Of the 31,138 reliable donors active in 1980, 5,509, or 17.7%, were active in 2024 as well. Table 4 groups donors by the cycle of their first itemized gift. The near-center share was 11.8% for the donors of 1980, 8.6% for those who first gave in 2000, 1.2% for 2012 and 0.24% for 2024. The groups that first gave from 1980 to 1988 had between 11.8% and 13.4% near the center. No group that first gave from 1990 on exceeds 10.1%, and none that first gave from 2010 on exceeds 3.0%. The order is not strict, and the figure shows the cycles in which a group sits nearer the center than the group before it.

Table 4. Every group of donors that first gave from 2010 on has 3.0% or less near the center, against 11.8% to 13.4% for the groups of the 1980s

The second view compares donors giving for the first time with repeat donors. In 2008, repeat donors were 7.5% near the center and first-time donors 2.6%, and in 2024 the figures were 1.19% and 0.24%. Repeat donors fall as well. With one score per donor, the repeat pool changes only through the mix of earlier groups that stay active, and the third view shows that mix: by 2024, 72.2% of active reliable donors had first given in 2010 or later and 0.9% from 1980 to 1988. This chapter does not test which groups account for the fall among repeat donors.

The group of 2024 comes with a caution about selection. A donor counts as reliable only after giving to 8 recipients, so a donor first seen in 2024 must reach that number within one cycle to appear at all. Of the donors first seen in 2024, 2.7% do, against 16.1% of those first seen in 2012. The 65,445 reliable newcomers are 2.6% of the 2024 pool, against 24.9% of the 2020 pool. The count of reliable newcomers fell from 868,613 in 2020 to 139,196 in 2022, so the group of 2022 is affected as well. A single checkout on a platform that splits a gift among several committees could reach the threshold at once, and this chapter does not test how often that happens. Under a filter of 2 recipients the 2024 group has 0.96% near the center, against 13.4% for the 1980 group under the same filter, so the lower share among newer donors does not depend on the recipient filter.

### The fall holds across bands, filters and caps

The width of the center and the minimum of 8 recipients are conventions, and Table 5 varies each of them. A center of 0.10 on each side of zero gives 4.8% in 1980 and 0.4% in 2024, and a center of 0.50 gives 26.7% and 2.7%. Tightening the recipient filter to 16 recipients gives 11.2% and 1.3%, and counting every donor with a score, including those whose score rests on few recipients, gives 10.5% and 1.7%. The levels depend on the choices and the direction does not.

Table 5. The fall in the near-center share holds for every center band and recipient filter checked, and for dollars once each donor is capped

A change in the balance between left and right does not explain the fall by itself. Among donors left of zero, the share within 0.25 of zero fell from 17.5% to 0.8%, and among donors right of zero it fell from 8.7% to 2.1%. The counts of donors near zero rose on each side, from 1,898 to 16,234 on the left and from 1,769 to 13,149 on the right, so the fall is in shares.

Dollar-weighted shares depend on the cap. From 2002 on the capped dollar share is above the donor share, and in 2024 it is 2.9 times the donor share, because near-center donors gave more per donor than the others did. The capped share in 2002 is a local high, against 9.6% in 2000 and 8.9% in 2004. Without a cap the share is 24.5% in 2002 and 6.3% in 2024. The cap binds for 456 of the 794,413 reliable donors of 2002 and for 358 of the 2,533,588 of 2024, and this chapter uses the capped series. The dollar share in 2024 is 3.0% with the lower cap of the figure and 3.6% with the higher cap, and both are above the donor share of 1.2%. (Note: Without a cap, one record accounts for 55% of the near-center dollars in 2002 and one donor gave 49% in 2024. The record of 2002 is $1.02 billion in 2024 dollars for a single donor, 8.6 times the next-largest near-center total of $118 million, and it is probably an error in the release.)

### The candidate share was lower in 2020 than in 1980

The same score applies to House and Senate candidates of the two major parties, using the dynamic CFscore, which is estimated period by period, so a candidate's score can differ from one cycle to the next. The candidate figures count candidates with a score, who are 86% to 98% of the major-party House and Senate candidates in the file in each cycle and 63% to 92% of those with under $10,000 in receipts. Table 6 shows the share of candidates with a score within 0.25 of zero. It fell from 13.3% in 1980 to 2.0% in 2020, though not in every cycle: it was 10.5% in 1988 and 12.9% in 1990. The share of seated winners was 16.2% in 1980, 1.5% in 2020 and 2.8% in 2022, the last cycle with winners coded. The candidate share then rose to 2.6% in 2022 and 3.1% in 2024 while the donor share kept falling, so the two lines agree in direction only through 2020. The rise rests on small counts, with 51 of 2,543 candidates in 2020 and 72 of 2,329 in 2024, and among seated winners 7 of 469 in 2020 and 13 of 469 in 2022. The fall is in who ran and raised money, and it does not come only from who won.

Table 6. The share of federal candidates near the center fell from 13.3% in 1980 to 2.0% in 2020 and was 3.1% in 2024

One account of the supply of candidates holds that the costs of holding office discourage moderates from running [4]. The DIME candidate file lists candidates who raised money and not people who decided against running, so it cannot test that account.

### Party medians moved apart on both scales

Candidate scores and donor scores are estimated from the same giving records, so agreement between the donor line and the candidate line is not evidence from two sources. Table 7 shows the party medians. The median of Democratic candidates went from −0.43 to −0.96 and the median of Republican candidates from +0.97 to +1.35. The gap between them grew from 1.40 to 2.31, with the Democratic median moving further. The 75th percentile of Democratic candidates, the edge of the party nearest zero, went from −0.06 to −0.76, from inside the band of 0.25 around zero to outside it.

The other two views use seated members, who won their seats and have a roll-call score. The second view scores them by CFscore and the third by DW-NOMINATE, which comes from roll-call votes and not from donations. The DW-NOMINATE party gap went from 0.63 in 1980 to 0.90 in 2022, but the order of the moves reverses. The Democratic median went from −0.32 to −0.38 and the Republican median from +0.31 to +0.51. The CFscore medians of the same seated members went from −0.43 to −0.78 for Democrats and from +0.94 to +1.20 for Republicans. The two scales therefore disagree about which party moved further, and the difference is not one between candidates and winners. This chapter does not settle which scale is right. (Note: In 2022 the CFscore and the roll-call score of seated members correlate at +0.95 across both parties, −0.03 among Democrats and +0.52 among Republicans, so most of the pooled correlation is the gap between the parties. Earlier work used contribution records to predict roll-call scores [5]. Planned, Polarization in Congress (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/polarization-in-congress; planned) covers the roll-call record itself.)

Table 7. The parties moved apart on both scales, but CFscores show the Democratic median moving further and roll-call scores the Republican median

Earlier work found that members of Congress were more extreme than their constituents and that the median voter was leapfrogged when one House gave way to the next [6]. Planned, Candidate extremity and vote share (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/candidate-extremity-and-vote-share; planned) asks whether candidates far from zero lose vote share.

### Self-described moderates changed less than the donor share

Donors are a small and self-selected group, so the donor pool does not describe voters. As a coarse comparison, Table 8 places the near-center donor share next to the share of adults who call themselves moderate on the five-point ideology question of the Cooperative Election Study (CES). Each line is scaled to its own 2006 value, so the lines compare relative change. The survey share is weighted, and its interval is a 95% confidence interval built from the effective sample size [7]. The donor share fell from 7.8% in 2006 to 1.2% in 2024, a change of −6.7 points. The survey share was 39.0% (95% CI 38.5% to 39.6%) in 2006, 30.8% (95% CI 30.2% to 31.3%) in 2018 and 35.4% (95% CI 34.7% to 36.1%) in 2024, so it changed by −3.7 (95% CI −4.6 to −2.8) points from 2006 to 2024.

Table 8. The donor share near the center fell from 7.8% to 1.2% while self-described moderates stayed between 30.8% and 39.0%

The two lines measure different things on different scales: a position estimated from giving among people who give, and a label chosen by adults from five options. The comparison shows that, relative to its 2006 level, the donor share fell by 85% and the survey share by 9%, and that the survey share had no steady direction. Its largest move is the fall from 38.1% (95% CI 37.6% to 38.7%) in 2016 to 30.8% in 2018, −7.4 (95% CI −8.2 to −6.6) points, which this chapter does not explain. The comparison does not show which changed first, because the survey series starts in 2006, when the donor share had already fallen from 11.8% to 7.8%. It also does not show that voters are moderate in any absolute sense. Chapter 1.1, Party and ideology (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/party-and-ideology) follows how party and ideology line up among survey respondents.

### What these data cannot show

The figures describe who gave in each cycle. They say nothing about whether any donor's views changed, because DIME fixes each donor's score, and every change over time here is a change in the roster of donors.

The reliable flag is set once from a donor's whole record, and so is the score, which is estimated from giving after the cycle in which the donor is counted as well as before it. A donor who gave in 1980 and reached 8 recipients years later counts as reliable in 1980, while a donor who joined recently has had less time to reach that number, so the early and late pools are selected by different rules. The checks with other recipient filters show that the direction survives, and they do not remove the difference in career length. DIME starts in 1980, so donors first seen in 1980 include people who gave before it.

Only itemized gifts are in the file. Gifts below the itemization threshold are absent, and changes in what gets itemized can change who appears in the pool. The codebook is dated late December 2024 and states coverage through the 2024 cycle without saying how complete the filings of that cycle are, so the 2024 pool may be incomplete. The files hold no recipients, so nothing here says whether a donor gave to one party, to both or to candidates near the middle, and nothing says how much of the entry after 2002 came through online platforms.

A CFscore is an estimate, and the shares carry no allowance for its error. Zero is a point on an estimated scale and not a measured middle of public opinion, so near the center means near zero and does not mean moderate in the sense of a survey answer. Counts of the donors in the release are full counts and carry no sampling interval.

Candidate scores rest on the same records as donor scores, so only the roll-call check and the survey comparison bring in other sources, and the roll-call check agrees with the CFscores on the size of the party gap and not on which party moved further. The donor lines cover gifts to federal and state recipients and the candidate lines cover federal candidates only. Winners are not coded for 2024, and primary results are coded for only part of the candidates in some cycles, so the chapter does not follow candidates through the primary stage.

The data are descriptive. They cannot say whether donors' positions shape which candidates run, whether candidates' positions attract donors, or whether both follow something else, such as the sorting of voters by party. Neither donors nor candidates are a sample of voters.

## Tables

### Table 1. The share of donors near zero fell and donors left of zero became the majority between 1980 and 2024

CFscores of reliable individual donors active in each election cycle, 1980-2024; a donor counts in every cycle in which they gave

| Election cycle | Weighted by | CFscore (bin center) | Density |
| --- | --- | ---: | ---: |
| 1980 | Donors | −2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | −2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | −2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | −2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | −2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | −1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | −1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | −1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | −1.65 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | −1.55 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | −1.45 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | −1.35 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | −1.25 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | −1.15 | 0.002 |
| 1980 | Donors | −1.05 | 0.036 |
| 1980 | Donors | −0.95 | 0.242 |
| 1980 | Donors | −0.85 | 0.392 |
| 1980 | Donors | −0.75 | 0.445 |
| 1980 | Donors | −0.65 | 0.469 |
| 1980 | Donors | −0.55 | 0.420 |
| 1980 | Donors | −0.45 | 0.387 |
| 1980 | Donors | −0.35 | 0.334 |
| 1980 | Donors | −0.25 | 0.284 |
| 1980 | Donors | −0.15 | 0.244 |
| 1980 | Donors | −0.05 | 0.237 |
| 1980 | Donors | 0.05 | 0.240 |
| 1980 | Donors | 0.15 | 0.217 |
| 1980 | Donors | 0.25 | 0.225 |
| 1980 | Donors | 0.35 | 0.246 |
| 1980 | Donors | 0.45 | 0.258 |
| 1980 | Donors | 0.55 | 0.270 |
| 1980 | Donors | 0.65 | 0.319 |
| 1980 | Donors | 0.75 | 0.408 |
| 1980 | Donors | 0.85 | 0.478 |
| 1980 | Donors | 0.95 | 0.635 |
| 1980 | Donors | 1.05 | 0.877 |
| 1980 | Donors | 1.15 | 1.052 |
| 1980 | Donors | 1.25 | 0.907 |
| 1980 | Donors | 1.35 | 0.310 |
| 1980 | Donors | 1.45 | 0.058 |
| 1980 | Donors | 1.55 | 0.004 |
| 1980 | Donors | 1.65 | 0.001 |
| 1980 | Donors | 1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | 1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | 1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | 2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | 2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | 2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | 2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Donors | 2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −1.65 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −1.55 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −1.45 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −1.35 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −1.25 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −1.15 | 0.001 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −1.05 | 0.016 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −0.95 | 0.162 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −0.85 | 0.405 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −0.75 | 0.482 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −0.65 | 0.503 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −0.55 | 0.445 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −0.45 | 0.384 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −0.35 | 0.345 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −0.25 | 0.316 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −0.15 | 0.258 |
| 1980 | Dollars | −0.05 | 0.273 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 0.05 | 0.233 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 0.15 | 0.223 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 0.25 | 0.228 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 0.35 | 0.256 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 0.45 | 0.276 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 0.55 | 0.278 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 0.65 | 0.309 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 0.75 | 0.357 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 0.85 | 0.425 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 0.95 | 0.628 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 1.05 | 0.901 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 1.15 | 1.159 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 1.25 | 0.900 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 1.35 | 0.208 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 1.45 | 0.027 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 1.55 | 0.002 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 1.65 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1980 | Dollars | 2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | −2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | −2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | −2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | −2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | −2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | −1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | −1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | −1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | −1.65 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | −1.55 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | −1.45 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | −1.35 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | −1.25 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | −1.15 | 0.006 |
| 1982 | Donors | −1.05 | 0.038 |
| 1982 | Donors | −0.95 | 0.212 |
| 1982 | Donors | −0.85 | 0.359 |
| 1982 | Donors | −0.75 | 0.426 |
| 1982 | Donors | −0.65 | 0.449 |
| 1982 | Donors | −0.55 | 0.425 |
| 1982 | Donors | −0.45 | 0.384 |
| 1982 | Donors | −0.35 | 0.337 |
| 1982 | Donors | −0.25 | 0.296 |
| 1982 | Donors | −0.15 | 0.253 |
| 1982 | Donors | −0.05 | 0.249 |
| 1982 | Donors | 0.05 | 0.258 |
| 1982 | Donors | 0.15 | 0.226 |
| 1982 | Donors | 0.25 | 0.223 |
| 1982 | Donors | 0.35 | 0.254 |
| 1982 | Donors | 0.45 | 0.258 |
| 1982 | Donors | 0.55 | 0.275 |
| 1982 | Donors | 0.65 | 0.335 |
| 1982 | Donors | 0.75 | 0.378 |
| 1982 | Donors | 0.85 | 0.461 |
| 1982 | Donors | 0.95 | 0.613 |
| 1982 | Donors | 1.05 | 0.873 |
| 1982 | Donors | 1.15 | 1.041 |
| 1982 | Donors | 1.25 | 1.010 |
| 1982 | Donors | 1.35 | 0.305 |
| 1982 | Donors | 1.45 | 0.048 |
| 1982 | Donors | 1.55 | 0.007 |
| 1982 | Donors | 1.65 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | 1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | 1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | 1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | 2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | 2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | 2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | 2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Donors | 2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −1.65 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −1.55 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −1.45 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −1.35 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −1.25 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −1.15 | 0.004 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −1.05 | 0.043 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −0.95 | 0.165 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −0.85 | 0.387 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −0.75 | 0.458 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −0.65 | 0.474 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −0.55 | 0.373 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −0.45 | 0.335 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −0.35 | 0.292 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −0.25 | 0.254 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −0.15 | 0.208 |
| 1982 | Dollars | −0.05 | 0.193 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 0.05 | 0.193 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 0.15 | 0.173 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 0.25 | 0.186 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 0.35 | 0.203 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 0.45 | 0.204 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 0.55 | 0.251 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 0.65 | 0.260 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 0.75 | 0.286 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 0.85 | 0.355 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 0.95 | 0.534 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 1.05 | 0.943 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 1.15 | 1.443 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 1.25 | 1.476 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 1.35 | 0.281 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 1.45 | 0.025 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 1.55 | 0.002 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 1.65 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1982 | Dollars | 2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | −2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | −2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | −2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | −2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | −2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | −1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | −1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | −1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | −1.65 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | −1.55 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | −1.45 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | −1.35 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | −1.25 | 0.001 |
| 1984 | Donors | −1.15 | 0.008 |
| 1984 | Donors | −1.05 | 0.067 |
| 1984 | Donors | −0.95 | 0.293 |
| 1984 | Donors | −0.85 | 0.422 |
| 1984 | Donors | −0.75 | 0.460 |
| 1984 | Donors | −0.65 | 0.475 |
| 1984 | Donors | −0.55 | 0.446 |
| 1984 | Donors | −0.45 | 0.383 |
| 1984 | Donors | −0.35 | 0.356 |
| 1984 | Donors | −0.25 | 0.288 |
| 1984 | Donors | −0.15 | 0.267 |
| 1984 | Donors | −0.05 | 0.247 |
| 1984 | Donors | 0.05 | 0.232 |
| 1984 | Donors | 0.15 | 0.217 |
| 1984 | Donors | 0.25 | 0.217 |
| 1984 | Donors | 0.35 | 0.228 |
| 1984 | Donors | 0.45 | 0.244 |
| 1984 | Donors | 0.55 | 0.252 |
| 1984 | Donors | 0.65 | 0.307 |
| 1984 | Donors | 0.75 | 0.356 |
| 1984 | Donors | 0.85 | 0.436 |
| 1984 | Donors | 0.95 | 0.565 |
| 1984 | Donors | 1.05 | 0.785 |
| 1984 | Donors | 1.15 | 0.990 |
| 1984 | Donors | 1.25 | 1.026 |
| 1984 | Donors | 1.35 | 0.369 |
| 1984 | Donors | 1.45 | 0.056 |
| 1984 | Donors | 1.55 | 0.008 |
| 1984 | Donors | 1.65 | 0.001 |
| 1984 | Donors | 1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | 1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | 1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | 2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | 2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | 2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | 2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Donors | 2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −1.65 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −1.55 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −1.45 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −1.35 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −1.25 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −1.15 | 0.006 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −1.05 | 0.058 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −0.95 | 0.241 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −0.85 | 0.434 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −0.75 | 0.464 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −0.65 | 0.458 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −0.55 | 0.377 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −0.45 | 0.320 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −0.35 | 0.283 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −0.25 | 0.236 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −0.15 | 0.220 |
| 1984 | Dollars | −0.05 | 0.202 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 0.05 | 0.188 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 0.15 | 0.186 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 0.25 | 0.190 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 0.35 | 0.181 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 0.45 | 0.200 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 0.55 | 0.221 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 0.65 | 0.238 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 0.75 | 0.300 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 0.85 | 0.375 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 0.95 | 0.529 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 1.05 | 0.912 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 1.15 | 1.337 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 1.25 | 1.502 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 1.35 | 0.311 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 1.45 | 0.027 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 1.55 | 0.003 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 1.65 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1984 | Dollars | 2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | −2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | −2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | −2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | −2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | −2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | −1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | −1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | −1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | −1.65 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | −1.55 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | −1.45 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | −1.35 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | −1.25 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | −1.15 | 0.009 |
| 1986 | Donors | −1.05 | 0.055 |
| 1986 | Donors | −0.95 | 0.228 |
| 1986 | Donors | −0.85 | 0.366 |
| 1986 | Donors | −0.75 | 0.427 |
| 1986 | Donors | −0.65 | 0.453 |
| 1986 | Donors | −0.55 | 0.426 |
| 1986 | Donors | −0.45 | 0.379 |
| 1986 | Donors | −0.35 | 0.348 |
| 1986 | Donors | −0.25 | 0.293 |
| 1986 | Donors | −0.15 | 0.280 |
| 1986 | Donors | −0.05 | 0.266 |
| 1986 | Donors | 0.05 | 0.255 |
| 1986 | Donors | 0.15 | 0.240 |
| 1986 | Donors | 0.25 | 0.240 |
| 1986 | Donors | 0.35 | 0.257 |
| 1986 | Donors | 0.45 | 0.279 |
| 1986 | Donors | 0.55 | 0.293 |
| 1986 | Donors | 0.65 | 0.334 |
| 1986 | Donors | 0.75 | 0.400 |
| 1986 | Donors | 0.85 | 0.478 |
| 1986 | Donors | 0.95 | 0.602 |
| 1986 | Donors | 1.05 | 0.806 |
| 1986 | Donors | 1.15 | 0.945 |
| 1986 | Donors | 1.25 | 0.942 |
| 1986 | Donors | 1.35 | 0.339 |
| 1986 | Donors | 1.45 | 0.055 |
| 1986 | Donors | 1.55 | 0.006 |
| 1986 | Donors | 1.65 | 0.001 |
| 1986 | Donors | 1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | 1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | 1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | 2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | 2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | 2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | 2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Donors | 2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −1.65 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −1.55 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −1.45 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −1.35 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −1.25 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −1.15 | 0.009 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −1.05 | 0.055 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −0.95 | 0.208 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −0.85 | 0.391 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −0.75 | 0.428 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −0.65 | 0.439 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −0.55 | 0.394 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −0.45 | 0.354 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −0.35 | 0.289 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −0.25 | 0.251 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −0.15 | 0.234 |
| 1986 | Dollars | −0.05 | 0.228 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 0.05 | 0.214 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 0.15 | 0.220 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 0.25 | 0.202 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 0.35 | 0.216 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 0.45 | 0.242 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 0.55 | 0.266 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 0.65 | 0.282 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 0.75 | 0.342 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 0.85 | 0.427 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 0.95 | 0.588 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 1.05 | 0.925 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 1.15 | 1.211 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 1.25 | 1.253 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 1.35 | 0.294 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 1.45 | 0.033 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 1.55 | 0.003 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 1.65 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1986 | Dollars | 2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | −2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | −2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | −2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | −2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | −2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | −1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | −1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | −1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | −1.65 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | −1.55 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | −1.45 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | −1.35 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | −1.25 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | −1.15 | 0.011 |
| 1988 | Donors | −1.05 | 0.078 |
| 1988 | Donors | −0.95 | 0.345 |
| 1988 | Donors | −0.85 | 0.478 |
| 1988 | Donors | −0.75 | 0.516 |
| 1988 | Donors | −0.65 | 0.502 |
| 1988 | Donors | −0.55 | 0.473 |
| 1988 | Donors | −0.45 | 0.404 |
| 1988 | Donors | −0.35 | 0.353 |
| 1988 | Donors | −0.25 | 0.299 |
| 1988 | Donors | −0.15 | 0.287 |
| 1988 | Donors | −0.05 | 0.255 |
| 1988 | Donors | 0.05 | 0.243 |
| 1988 | Donors | 0.15 | 0.233 |
| 1988 | Donors | 0.25 | 0.239 |
| 1988 | Donors | 0.35 | 0.242 |
| 1988 | Donors | 0.45 | 0.263 |
| 1988 | Donors | 0.55 | 0.282 |
| 1988 | Donors | 0.65 | 0.318 |
| 1988 | Donors | 0.75 | 0.371 |
| 1988 | Donors | 0.85 | 0.444 |
| 1988 | Donors | 0.95 | 0.573 |
| 1988 | Donors | 1.05 | 0.722 |
| 1988 | Donors | 1.15 | 0.838 |
| 1988 | Donors | 1.25 | 0.818 |
| 1988 | Donors | 1.35 | 0.333 |
| 1988 | Donors | 1.45 | 0.070 |
| 1988 | Donors | 1.55 | 0.009 |
| 1988 | Donors | 1.65 | 0.001 |
| 1988 | Donors | 1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | 1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | 1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | 2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | 2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | 2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | 2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Donors | 2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −2.45 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −1.65 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −1.55 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −1.45 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −1.35 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −1.25 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −1.15 | 0.009 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −1.05 | 0.061 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −0.95 | 0.291 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −0.85 | 0.474 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −0.75 | 0.504 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −0.65 | 0.492 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −0.55 | 0.442 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −0.45 | 0.370 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −0.35 | 0.325 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −0.25 | 0.263 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −0.15 | 0.243 |
| 1988 | Dollars | −0.05 | 0.221 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 0.05 | 0.224 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 0.15 | 0.215 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 0.25 | 0.200 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 0.35 | 0.235 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 0.45 | 0.237 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 0.55 | 0.253 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 0.65 | 0.277 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 0.75 | 0.338 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 0.85 | 0.420 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 0.95 | 0.589 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 1.05 | 0.831 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 1.15 | 1.047 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 1.25 | 1.094 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 1.35 | 0.304 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 1.45 | 0.037 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 1.55 | 0.003 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 1.65 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 1.75 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 1.85 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 1.95 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 2.05 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 2.15 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 2.25 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 2.35 | 0.000 |
| 1988 | Dollars | 2.45 | 0.000 |

The first 500 of 2300 rows; every row is in https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/figures/donor_distribution.json.

Views: Donors (weight = Donors); Dollars (each donor capped at $1 million) (weight = Dollars).

Note: Scores beyond the ends of the axis are counted in the end bins.

Note: Dollars are itemized contributions in real 2024 dollars. Each donor's total in a cycle is capped so that a few very large donors do not set the shape.

Source: Stanford DIME v4.0 (Bonica), election cycles 1980-2024; full counts of itemized individual donors, no weights

Data: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/figures/donor_distribution.json

### Table 2. The share of donors near the center fell from 13.0% in 1986 to 9.6% in 2002, then to 1.2% in 2024

Percent of active reliable donors with a CFscore within 0.25 of zero, by election cycle

| Election cycle | Share within 0.25 of zero | Active donors |
| ---: | ---: | ---: |
| 1980 | 11.8% | 31,138 |
| 1982 | 12.3% | 25,207 |
| 1984 | 12.0% | 39,460 |
| 1986 | 13.0% | 45,211 |
| 1988 | 12.7% | 70,902 |
| 1990 | 11.3% | 111,512 |
| 1992 | 11.0% | 167,283 |
| 1994 | 10.7% | 197,604 |
| 1996 | 10.7% | 297,838 |
| 1998 | 10.1% | 470,028 |
| 2000 | 10.0% | 598,971 |
| 2002 | 9.6% | 794,413 |
| 2004 | 7.7% | 1,033,327 |
| 2006 | 7.8% | 1,142,451 |
| 2008 | 6.2% | 1,425,885 |
| 2010 | 6.6% | 1,409,984 |
| 2012 | 4.6% | 1,805,776 |
| 2014 | 4.8% | 1,597,010 |
| 2016 | 3.4% | 1,978,112 |
| 2018 | 2.5% | 2,161,252 |
| 2020 | 1.5% | 3,483,649 |
| 2022 | 1.4% | 3,082,400 |
| 2024 | 1.2% | 2,533,588 |

Note: These are full counts of itemized donors, so the line carries no sampling interval. It does not carry the estimation error of each CFscore either.

Note: After 2002 the line rises in 3 cycles (2006, 2010 and 2014), by at most 0.3 points. The split at 2002 is descriptive: 2002 has the lowest share of the cycles up to then, and no test for a break was run.

Source: Stanford DIME v4.0 (Bonica), election cycles 1980-2024; full counts of itemized individual donors, no weights

Data: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/figures/center_share.json

### Table 3. Donors who joined the pool account for most of the fall in the near-center share

Change in the percent of active reliable donors within 0.25 of zero, 1980 to 2024, split into donors who left and donors who joined between consecutive cycles

| kind | step | value |
| --- | --- | ---: |
| start | Pool in 1980 | 11.81 |
| delta | Donors who left | 0.554 |
| delta | Donors who joined | −11.20 |
| end | Pool in 2024 | 1.16 |

Note: Joined means active in a cycle and not in the cycle before, so it includes donors who return after a gap; left is the reverse. Donors active in both cycles keep their score, so they change the share only through their weight in the pool.

Note: The steps are summed over the cycle-to-cycle changes from 1980 to 2024. Full counts: no sampling interval.

Source: Stanford DIME v4.0 (Bonica), election cycles 1980-2024; full counts of itemized individual donors, no weights

Data: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/figures/entry_exit.json

### Table 4. Every group of donors that first gave from 2010 on has 3.0% or less near the center, against 11.8% to 13.4% for the groups of the 1980s

Reliable donors grouped by the cycle of their first itemized gift: percent within 0.25 of zero (first and second views) and share of each cycle's active pool (third view)

| View | Series | Cycle | Share (%) | Donors in the group or pool |
| --- | --- | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| first | 2 or more | 1980 | 13.4 | 57,193 |
| first | 2 or more | 1982 | 12.6 | 22,786 |
| first | 2 or more | 1984 | 13.4 | 33,569 |
| first | 2 or more | 1986 | 14.4 | 33,181 |
| first | 2 or more | 1988 | 15.0 | 57,515 |
| first | 2 or more | 1990 | 11.2 | 113,379 |
| first | 2 or more | 1992 | 11.6 | 145,792 |
| first | 2 or more | 1994 | 11.2 | 143,470 |
| first | 2 or more | 1996 | 11.1 | 252,535 |
| first | 2 or more | 1998 | 10.0 | 448,844 |
| first | 2 or more | 2000 | 9.7 | 455,270 |
| first | 2 or more | 2002 | 8.9 | 573,418 |
| first | 2 or more | 2004 | 5.8 | 767,428 |
| first | 2 or more | 2006 | 6.9 | 654,817 |
| first | 2 or more | 2008 | 4.4 | 963,119 |
| first | 2 or more | 2010 | 5.3 | 661,868 |
| first | 2 or more | 2012 | 2.7 | 997,742 |
| first | 2 or more | 2014 | 4.0 | 658,594 |
| first | 2 or more | 2016 | 1.7 | 1,297,118 |
| first | 2 or more | 2018 | 1.1 | 1,198,890 |
| first | 2 or more | 2020 | 0.5 | 4,346,273 |
| first | 2 or more | 2022 | 1.1 | 971,049 |
| first | 2 or more | 2024 | 1.0 | 593,408 |
| first | 8 or more | 1980 | 11.8 | 31,138 |
| first | 8 or more | 1982 | 12.1 | 11,521 |
| first | 8 or more | 1984 | 12.1 | 16,963 |
| first | 8 or more | 1986 | 13.4 | 17,042 |
| first | 8 or more | 1988 | 12.7 | 29,382 |
| first | 8 or more | 1990 | 10.0 | 57,044 |
| first | 8 or more | 1992 | 10.0 | 75,594 |
| first | 8 or more | 1994 | 9.7 | 72,570 |
| first | 8 or more | 1996 | 10.1 | 123,517 |
| first | 8 or more | 1998 | 9.0 | 208,027 |
| first | 8 or more | 2000 | 8.6 | 206,419 |
| first | 8 or more | 2002 | 7.5 | 247,539 |
| first | 8 or more | 2004 | 4.3 | 325,622 |
| first | 8 or more | 2006 | 4.9 | 256,237 |
| first | 8 or more | 2008 | 2.6 | 365,960 |
| first | 8 or more | 2010 | 3.0 | 232,556 |
| first | 8 or more | 2012 | 1.2 | 387,766 |
| first | 8 or more | 2014 | 1.5 | 210,428 |
| first | 8 or more | 2016 | 0.5 | 442,260 |
| first | 8 or more | 2018 | 0.3 | 441,519 |
| first | 8 or more | 2020 | 0.1 | 868,613 |
| first | 8 or more | 2022 | 0.3 | 139,196 |
| first | 8 or more | 2024 | 0.2 | 65,445 |
| first | 16 or more | 1980 | 11.2 | 22,747 |
| first | 16 or more | 1982 | 11.5 | 8,088 |
| first | 16 or more | 1984 | 11.1 | 12,098 |
| first | 16 or more | 1986 | 12.3 | 12,014 |
| first | 16 or more | 1988 | 11.7 | 20,702 |
| first | 16 or more | 1990 | 9.2 | 39,048 |
| first | 16 or more | 1992 | 9.0 | 50,543 |
| first | 16 or more | 1994 | 8.7 | 46,220 |
| first | 16 or more | 1996 | 9.1 | 74,096 |
| first | 16 or more | 1998 | 8.0 | 119,247 |
| first | 16 or more | 2000 | 7.3 | 110,534 |
| first | 16 or more | 2002 | 6.0 | 123,280 |
| first | 16 or more | 2004 | 3.0 | 170,687 |
| first | 16 or more | 2006 | 3.3 | 123,728 |
| first | 16 or more | 2008 | 1.5 | 179,580 |
| first | 16 or more | 2010 | 1.7 | 106,925 |
| first | 16 or more | 2012 | 0.6 | 191,626 |
| first | 16 or more | 2014 | 0.8 | 99,944 |
| first | 16 or more | 2016 | 0.3 | 183,257 |
| first | 16 or more | 2018 | 0.2 | 197,639 |
| first | 16 or more | 2020 | 0.1 | 287,030 |
| first | 16 or more | 2022 | 0.2 | 47,621 |
| first | 16 or more | 2024 | 0.1 | 18,907 |
| tenure | All active | 1980 | 11.8 | 31,138 |
| tenure | All active | 1982 | 12.3 | 25,207 |
| tenure | All active | 1984 | 12.0 | 39,460 |
| tenure | All active | 1986 | 13.0 | 45,211 |
| tenure | All active | 1988 | 12.7 | 70,902 |
| tenure | All active | 1990 | 11.3 | 111,512 |
| tenure | All active | 1992 | 11.0 | 167,283 |
| tenure | All active | 1994 | 10.7 | 197,604 |
| tenure | All active | 1996 | 10.7 | 297,838 |
| tenure | All active | 1998 | 10.1 | 470,028 |
| tenure | All active | 2000 | 10.0 | 598,971 |
| tenure | All active | 2002 | 9.6 | 794,413 |
| tenure | All active | 2004 | 7.7 | 1,033,327 |
| tenure | All active | 2006 | 7.8 | 1,142,451 |
| tenure | All active | 2008 | 6.2 | 1,425,885 |
| tenure | All active | 2010 | 6.6 | 1,409,984 |
| tenure | All active | 2012 | 4.6 | 1,805,776 |
| tenure | All active | 2014 | 4.8 | 1,597,010 |
| tenure | All active | 2016 | 3.4 | 1,978,112 |
| tenure | All active | 2018 | 2.5 | 2,161,252 |
| tenure | All active | 2020 | 1.5 | 3,483,649 |
| tenure | All active | 2022 | 1.4 | 3,082,400 |
| tenure | All active | 2024 | 1.2 | 2,533,588 |
| tenure | First-time | 1980 | 11.8 | 31,138 |
| tenure | First-time | 1982 | 12.1 | 11,521 |
| tenure | First-time | 1984 | 12.1 | 16,963 |
| tenure | First-time | 1986 | 13.4 | 17,042 |
| tenure | First-time | 1988 | 12.7 | 29,382 |
| tenure | First-time | 1990 | 10.0 | 57,044 |
| tenure | First-time | 1992 | 10.0 | 75,594 |
| tenure | First-time | 1994 | 9.7 | 72,570 |
| tenure | First-time | 1996 | 10.1 | 123,517 |
| tenure | First-time | 1998 | 9.0 | 208,027 |
| tenure | First-time | 2000 | 8.6 | 206,419 |
| tenure | First-time | 2002 | 7.5 | 247,539 |
| tenure | First-time | 2004 | 4.3 | 325,622 |
| tenure | First-time | 2006 | 4.9 | 256,237 |
| tenure | First-time | 2008 | 2.6 | 365,960 |
| tenure | First-time | 2010 | 3.0 | 232,556 |
| tenure | First-time | 2012 | 1.2 | 387,766 |
| tenure | First-time | 2014 | 1.5 | 210,428 |
| tenure | First-time | 2016 | 0.5 | 442,260 |
| tenure | First-time | 2018 | 0.3 | 441,519 |
| tenure | First-time | 2020 | 0.1 | 868,613 |
| tenure | First-time | 2022 | 0.3 | 139,196 |
| tenure | First-time | 2024 | 0.2 | 65,445 |
| tenure | Repeat | 1982 | 12.4 | 13,686 |
| tenure | Repeat | 1984 | 12.0 | 22,497 |
| tenure | Repeat | 1986 | 12.7 | 28,169 |
| tenure | Repeat | 1988 | 12.7 | 41,520 |
| tenure | Repeat | 1990 | 12.8 | 54,468 |
| tenure | Repeat | 1992 | 11.8 | 91,689 |
| tenure | Repeat | 1994 | 11.2 | 125,034 |
| tenure | Repeat | 1996 | 11.1 | 174,321 |
| tenure | Repeat | 1998 | 11.0 | 262,001 |
| tenure | Repeat | 2000 | 10.8 | 392,552 |
| tenure | Repeat | 2002 | 10.5 | 546,874 |
| tenure | Repeat | 2004 | 9.3 | 707,705 |
| tenure | Repeat | 2006 | 8.7 | 886,214 |
| tenure | Repeat | 2008 | 7.5 | 1,059,925 |
| tenure | Repeat | 2010 | 7.3 | 1,177,428 |
| tenure | Repeat | 2012 | 5.5 | 1,418,010 |
| tenure | Repeat | 2014 | 5.3 | 1,386,582 |
| tenure | Repeat | 2016 | 4.2 | 1,535,852 |
| tenure | Repeat | 2018 | 3.1 | 1,719,733 |
| tenure | Repeat | 2020 | 2.0 | 2,615,036 |
| tenure | Repeat | 2022 | 1.4 | 2,943,204 |
| tenure | Repeat | 2024 | 1.2 | 2,468,143 |
| pool | 1980s | 1980 | 100.0 | 31,138 |
| pool | 1980s | 1982 | 100.0 | 25,207 |
| pool | 1980s | 1984 | 100.0 | 39,460 |
| pool | 1980s | 1986 | 100.0 | 45,211 |
| pool | 1980s | 1988 | 100.0 | 70,902 |
| pool | 1980s | 1990 | 48.8 | 111,512 |
| pool | 1980s | 1992 | 37.9 | 167,283 |
| pool | 1980s | 1994 | 29.9 | 197,604 |
| pool | 1980s | 1996 | 21.7 | 297,838 |
| pool | 1980s | 1998 | 14.2 | 470,028 |
| pool | 1980s | 2000 | 12.0 | 598,971 |
| pool | 1980s | 2002 | 8.7 | 794,413 |
| pool | 1980s | 2004 | 6.7 | 1,033,327 |
| pool | 1980s | 2006 | 5.7 | 1,142,451 |
| pool | 1980s | 2008 | 4.5 | 1,425,885 |
| pool | 1980s | 2010 | 4.1 | 1,409,984 |
| pool | 1980s | 2012 | 3.0 | 1,805,776 |
| pool | 1980s | 2014 | 3.0 | 1,597,010 |
| pool | 1980s | 2016 | 2.2 | 1,978,112 |
| pool | 1980s | 2018 | 1.7 | 2,161,252 |
| pool | 1980s | 2020 | 1.1 | 3,483,649 |
| pool | 1980s | 2022 | 1.0 | 3,082,400 |
| pool | 1980s | 2024 | 0.9 | 2,533,588 |
| pool | 1990s | 1990 | 51.2 | 111,512 |
| pool | 1990s | 1992 | 62.1 | 167,283 |
| pool | 1990s | 1994 | 70.1 | 197,604 |
| pool | 1990s | 1996 | 78.3 | 297,838 |
| pool | 1990s | 1998 | 85.8 | 470,028 |
| pool | 1990s | 2000 | 53.5 | 598,971 |
| pool | 1990s | 2002 | 44.5 | 794,413 |
| pool | 1990s | 2004 | 33.9 | 1,033,327 |
| pool | 1990s | 2006 | 30.1 | 1,142,451 |
| pool | 1990s | 2008 | 23.2 | 1,425,885 |
| pool | 1990s | 2010 | 22.5 | 1,409,984 |
| pool | 1990s | 2012 | 16.7 | 1,805,776 |
| pool | 1990s | 2014 | 16.3 | 1,597,010 |
| pool | 1990s | 2016 | 12.1 | 1,978,112 |
| pool | 1990s | 2018 | 9.7 | 2,161,252 |
| pool | 1990s | 2020 | 6.4 | 3,483,649 |
| pool | 1990s | 2022 | 6.0 | 3,082,400 |
| pool | 1990s | 2024 | 5.5 | 2,533,588 |
| pool | 2000s | 2000 | 34.5 | 598,971 |
| pool | 2000s | 2002 | 46.7 | 794,413 |
| pool | 2000s | 2004 | 59.3 | 1,033,327 |
| pool | 2000s | 2006 | 64.2 | 1,142,451 |
| pool | 2000s | 2008 | 72.3 | 1,425,885 |
| pool | 2000s | 2010 | 56.9 | 1,409,984 |
| pool | 2000s | 2012 | 49.9 | 1,805,776 |
| pool | 2000s | 2014 | 45.2 | 1,597,010 |
| pool | 2000s | 2016 | 37.5 | 1,978,112 |
| pool | 2000s | 2018 | 31.0 | 2,161,252 |
| pool | 2000s | 2020 | 23.9 | 3,483,649 |
| pool | 2000s | 2022 | 22.1 | 3,082,400 |
| pool | 2000s | 2024 | 21.3 | 2,533,588 |
| pool | 2010s | 2010 | 16.5 | 1,409,984 |
| pool | 2010s | 2012 | 30.4 | 1,805,776 |
| pool | 2010s | 2014 | 35.5 | 1,597,010 |
| pool | 2010s | 2016 | 48.2 | 1,978,112 |
| pool | 2010s | 2018 | 57.5 | 2,161,252 |
| pool | 2010s | 2020 | 43.8 | 3,483,649 |
| pool | 2010s | 2022 | 41.6 | 3,082,400 |
| pool | 2010s | 2024 | 40.1 | 2,533,588 |
| pool | 2020s | 2020 | 24.9 | 3,483,649 |
| pool | 2020s | 2022 | 29.3 | 3,082,400 |
| pool | 2020s | 2024 | 32.1 | 2,533,588 |

Views: By year of first gift (panel = first); First-time and repeat donors (panel = tenure); Pool by decade of first gift (panel = pool).

Note: A donor first seen in 1980 may have given before 1980, because DIME starts in 1980, so the 1980 group includes donors who first gave earlier.

Note: The reliable flag needs a minimum number of distinct recipients over the career, so a donor first seen in 2024 counts only after reaching that number within one cycle. Only 2.7% of the donors first seen in 2024 do, against 16.1% of those first seen in 2012.

Source: Stanford DIME v4.0 (Bonica), election cycles 1980-2024; full counts of itemized individual donors, no weights

Data: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/figures/cohort_center.json

### Table 5. The fall in the near-center share holds for every center band and recipient filter checked, and for dollars once each donor is capped

Percent of active reliable donors within a band of zero, by election cycle; one choice varied per view

| Choice varied | Series | Election cycle | Share (%) | Denominator |
| --- | --- | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| band | Band 0.10 | 1980 | 4.8 | 31,138 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 1982 | 5.1 | 25,207 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 1984 | 4.8 | 39,460 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 1986 | 5.2 | 45,211 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 1988 | 5.0 | 70,902 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 1990 | 4.4 | 111,512 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 1992 | 4.3 | 167,283 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 1994 | 4.1 | 197,604 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 1996 | 4.1 | 297,838 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 1998 | 3.9 | 470,028 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 2000 | 3.9 | 598,971 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 2002 | 3.7 | 794,413 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 2004 | 3.0 | 1,033,327 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 2006 | 3.0 | 1,142,451 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 2008 | 2.4 | 1,425,885 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 2010 | 2.5 | 1,409,984 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 2012 | 1.7 | 1,805,776 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 2014 | 1.8 | 1,597,010 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 2016 | 1.3 | 1,978,112 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 2018 | 1.0 | 2,161,252 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 2020 | 0.6 | 3,483,649 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 2022 | 0.5 | 3,082,400 |
| band | Band 0.10 | 2024 | 0.4 | 2,533,588 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 1980 | 7.0 | 31,138 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 1982 | 7.5 | 25,207 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 1984 | 7.2 | 39,460 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 1986 | 7.7 | 45,211 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 1988 | 7.5 | 70,902 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 1990 | 6.6 | 111,512 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 1992 | 6.5 | 167,283 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 1994 | 6.2 | 197,604 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 1996 | 6.2 | 297,838 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 1998 | 5.9 | 470,028 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 2000 | 5.8 | 598,971 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 2002 | 5.6 | 794,413 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 2004 | 4.5 | 1,033,327 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 2006 | 4.6 | 1,142,451 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 2008 | 3.6 | 1,425,885 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 2010 | 3.8 | 1,409,984 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 2012 | 2.7 | 1,805,776 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 2014 | 2.8 | 1,597,010 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 2016 | 2.0 | 1,978,112 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 2018 | 1.5 | 2,161,252 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 2020 | 0.9 | 3,483,649 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 2022 | 0.8 | 3,082,400 |
| band | Band 0.15 | 2024 | 0.7 | 2,533,588 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 1980 | 11.8 | 31,138 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 1982 | 12.3 | 25,207 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 1984 | 12.0 | 39,460 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 1986 | 13.0 | 45,211 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 1988 | 12.7 | 70,902 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 1990 | 11.3 | 111,512 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 1992 | 11.0 | 167,283 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 1994 | 10.7 | 197,604 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 1996 | 10.7 | 297,838 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 1998 | 10.1 | 470,028 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 2000 | 10.0 | 598,971 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 2002 | 9.6 | 794,413 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 2004 | 7.7 | 1,033,327 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 2006 | 7.8 | 1,142,451 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 2008 | 6.2 | 1,425,885 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 2010 | 6.6 | 1,409,984 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 2012 | 4.6 | 1,805,776 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 2014 | 4.8 | 1,597,010 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 2016 | 3.4 | 1,978,112 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 2018 | 2.5 | 2,161,252 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 2020 | 1.5 | 3,483,649 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 2022 | 1.4 | 3,082,400 |
| band | Band 0.25 | 2024 | 1.2 | 2,533,588 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 1980 | 17.3 | 31,138 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 1982 | 17.9 | 25,207 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 1984 | 17.5 | 39,460 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 1986 | 18.6 | 45,211 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 1988 | 18.4 | 70,902 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 1990 | 16.5 | 111,512 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 1992 | 16.0 | 167,283 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 1994 | 15.7 | 197,604 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 1996 | 15.6 | 297,838 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 1998 | 14.9 | 470,028 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 2000 | 14.7 | 598,971 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 2002 | 14.1 | 794,413 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 2004 | 11.3 | 1,033,327 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 2006 | 11.5 | 1,142,451 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 2008 | 9.2 | 1,425,885 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 2010 | 9.6 | 1,409,984 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 2012 | 6.8 | 1,805,776 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 2014 | 7.1 | 1,597,010 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 2016 | 5.0 | 1,978,112 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 2018 | 3.7 | 2,161,252 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 2020 | 2.3 | 3,483,649 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 2022 | 2.1 | 3,082,400 |
| band | Band 0.35 | 2024 | 1.7 | 2,533,588 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 1980 | 26.7 | 31,138 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 1982 | 27.4 | 25,207 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 1984 | 26.7 | 39,460 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 1986 | 28.3 | 45,211 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 1988 | 28.1 | 70,902 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 1990 | 25.9 | 111,512 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 1992 | 24.8 | 167,283 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 1994 | 24.4 | 197,604 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 1996 | 24.1 | 297,838 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 1998 | 23.6 | 470,028 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 2000 | 23.2 | 598,971 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 2002 | 22.2 | 794,413 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 2004 | 17.8 | 1,033,327 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 2006 | 18.2 | 1,142,451 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 2008 | 14.5 | 1,425,885 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 2010 | 15.1 | 1,409,984 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 2012 | 10.7 | 1,805,776 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 2014 | 11.2 | 1,597,010 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 2016 | 8.0 | 1,978,112 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 2018 | 6.0 | 2,161,252 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 2020 | 3.7 | 3,483,649 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 2022 | 3.3 | 3,082,400 |
| band | Band 0.50 | 2024 | 2.7 | 2,533,588 |
| recipients | All donors | 1980 | 10.5 | 154,785 |
| recipients | All donors | 1982 | 11.3 | 86,670 |
| recipients | All donors | 1984 | 11.3 | 131,200 |
| recipients | All donors | 1986 | 13.2 | 133,774 |
| recipients | All donors | 1988 | 11.4 | 214,446 |
| recipients | All donors | 1990 | 10.7 | 380,190 |
| recipients | All donors | 1992 | 10.4 | 530,583 |
| recipients | All donors | 1994 | 9.9 | 607,066 |
| recipients | All donors | 1996 | 9.6 | 975,342 |
| recipients | All donors | 1998 | 8.9 | 1,682,818 |
| recipients | All donors | 2000 | 9.7 | 1,848,013 |
| recipients | All donors | 2002 | 9.8 | 2,473,213 |
| recipients | All donors | 2004 | 7.6 | 3,033,682 |
| recipients | All donors | 2006 | 8.4 | 3,259,135 |
| recipients | All donors | 2008 | 6.3 | 4,076,013 |
| recipients | All donors | 2010 | 7.1 | 3,815,085 |
| recipients | All donors | 2012 | 5.0 | 4,663,505 |
| recipients | All donors | 2014 | 5.6 | 4,121,821 |
| recipients | All donors | 2016 | 3.5 | 5,905,547 |
| recipients | All donors | 2018 | 3.0 | 5,021,757 |
| recipients | All donors | 2020 | 1.0 | 14,302,588 |
| recipients | All donors | 2022 | 1.3 | 8,692,636 |
| recipients | All donors | 2024 | 1.7 | 7,043,771 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 1980 | 13.4 | 57,193 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 1982 | 12.6 | 43,044 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 1984 | 12.8 | 67,054 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 1986 | 13.8 | 73,140 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 1988 | 14.3 | 117,042 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 1990 | 12.2 | 188,933 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 1992 | 12.0 | 279,329 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 1994 | 11.5 | 319,777 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 1996 | 11.3 | 494,892 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 1998 | 10.6 | 811,919 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 2000 | 10.5 | 1,000,415 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 2002 | 10.1 | 1,330,550 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 2004 | 7.9 | 1,747,923 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 2006 | 8.4 | 1,877,694 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 2008 | 6.5 | 2,439,648 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 2010 | 7.2 | 2,300,985 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 2012 | 4.9 | 2,988,603 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 2014 | 5.5 | 2,604,742 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 2016 | 3.6 | 3,494,075 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 2018 | 2.8 | 3,568,065 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 2020 | 1.4 | 8,698,567 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 2022 | 1.4 | 6,146,958 |
| recipients_table | 2 or more | 2024 | 1.3 | 5,034,842 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 1980 | 12.6 | 41,298 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 1982 | 12.5 | 33,193 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 1984 | 12.5 | 52,204 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 1986 | 13.4 | 58,793 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 1988 | 13.4 | 92,400 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 1990 | 11.8 | 146,931 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 1992 | 11.6 | 219,442 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 1994 | 11.1 | 258,365 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 1996 | 11.1 | 399,999 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 1998 | 10.5 | 648,297 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 2000 | 10.4 | 831,167 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 2002 | 10.0 | 1,123,133 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 2004 | 8.0 | 1,441,691 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 2006 | 8.3 | 1,611,590 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 2008 | 6.6 | 2,032,932 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 2010 | 7.0 | 1,982,381 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 2012 | 4.8 | 2,559,273 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 2014 | 5.2 | 2,197,539 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 2016 | 3.5 | 2,875,282 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 2018 | 2.6 | 2,992,976 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 2020 | 1.4 | 5,984,589 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 2022 | 1.3 | 4,732,218 |
| recipients_table | 4 or more | 2024 | 1.2 | 3,824,633 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 1980 | 11.8 | 31,138 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 1982 | 12.3 | 25,207 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 1984 | 12.0 | 39,460 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 1986 | 13.0 | 45,211 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 1988 | 12.7 | 70,902 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 1990 | 11.3 | 111,512 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 1992 | 11.0 | 167,283 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 1994 | 10.7 | 197,604 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 1996 | 10.7 | 297,838 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 1998 | 10.1 | 470,028 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 2000 | 10.0 | 598,971 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 2002 | 9.6 | 794,413 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 2004 | 7.7 | 1,033,327 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 2006 | 7.8 | 1,142,451 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 2008 | 6.2 | 1,425,885 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 2010 | 6.6 | 1,409,984 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 2012 | 4.6 | 1,805,776 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 2014 | 4.8 | 1,597,010 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 2016 | 3.4 | 1,978,112 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 2018 | 2.5 | 2,161,252 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 2020 | 1.5 | 3,483,649 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 2022 | 1.4 | 3,082,400 |
| recipients | 8 or more | 2024 | 1.2 | 2,533,588 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 1980 | 11.4 | 26,188 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 1982 | 11.9 | 21,167 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 1984 | 11.6 | 33,259 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 1986 | 12.5 | 38,114 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 1988 | 12.2 | 59,899 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 1990 | 11.0 | 93,515 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 1992 | 10.5 | 139,520 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 1994 | 10.3 | 163,612 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 1996 | 10.3 | 242,380 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 1998 | 9.8 | 374,206 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 2000 | 9.6 | 472,789 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 2002 | 9.1 | 614,504 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 2004 | 7.4 | 798,766 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 2006 | 7.5 | 876,096 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 2008 | 6.0 | 1,087,790 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 2010 | 6.2 | 1,077,733 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 2012 | 4.4 | 1,375,276 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 2014 | 4.6 | 1,244,871 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 2016 | 3.4 | 1,488,357 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 2018 | 2.5 | 1,655,596 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 2020 | 1.7 | 2,400,789 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 2022 | 1.5 | 2,216,874 |
| recipients_table | 12 or more | 2024 | 1.2 | 1,863,305 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 1980 | 11.2 | 22,747 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 1982 | 11.7 | 18,579 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 1984 | 11.3 | 29,149 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 1986 | 12.2 | 33,418 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 1988 | 11.9 | 52,412 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 1990 | 10.6 | 81,075 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 1992 | 10.2 | 120,528 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 1994 | 10.0 | 140,308 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 1996 | 10.0 | 204,428 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 1998 | 9.5 | 310,744 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 2000 | 9.3 | 388,670 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 2002 | 8.8 | 497,712 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 2004 | 7.2 | 646,757 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 2006 | 7.2 | 705,532 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 2008 | 5.8 | 871,757 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 2010 | 6.0 | 865,388 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 2012 | 4.3 | 1,098,706 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 2014 | 4.4 | 1,011,317 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 2016 | 3.4 | 1,187,456 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 2018 | 2.6 | 1,327,072 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 2020 | 1.8 | 1,793,107 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 2022 | 1.6 | 1,688,734 |
| recipients | 16 or more | 2024 | 1.3 | 1,443,230 |
| cap | Donors | 1980 | 11.8 | 31,138 |
| cap | Donors | 1982 | 12.3 | 25,207 |
| cap | Donors | 1984 | 12.0 | 39,460 |
| cap | Donors | 1986 | 13.0 | 45,211 |
| cap | Donors | 1988 | 12.7 | 70,902 |
| cap | Donors | 1990 | 11.3 | 111,512 |
| cap | Donors | 1992 | 11.0 | 167,283 |
| cap | Donors | 1994 | 10.7 | 197,604 |
| cap | Donors | 1996 | 10.7 | 297,838 |
| cap | Donors | 1998 | 10.1 | 470,028 |
| cap | Donors | 2000 | 10.0 | 598,971 |
| cap | Donors | 2002 | 9.6 | 794,413 |
| cap | Donors | 2004 | 7.7 | 1,033,327 |
| cap | Donors | 2006 | 7.8 | 1,142,451 |
| cap | Donors | 2008 | 6.2 | 1,425,885 |
| cap | Donors | 2010 | 6.6 | 1,409,984 |
| cap | Donors | 2012 | 4.6 | 1,805,776 |
| cap | Donors | 2014 | 4.8 | 1,597,010 |
| cap | Donors | 2016 | 3.4 | 1,978,112 |
| cap | Donors | 2018 | 2.5 | 2,161,252 |
| cap | Donors | 2020 | 1.5 | 3,483,649 |
| cap | Donors | 2022 | 1.4 | 3,082,400 |
| cap | Donors | 2024 | 1.2 | 2,533,588 |
| cap | No cap | 1980 | 12.2 | 31,138 |
| cap | No cap | 1982 | 9.6 | 25,207 |
| cap | No cap | 1984 | 10.0 | 39,460 |
| cap | No cap | 1986 | 11.1 | 45,211 |
| cap | No cap | 1988 | 11.1 | 70,902 |
| cap | No cap | 1990 | 11.5 | 111,512 |
| cap | No cap | 1992 | 10.2 | 167,283 |
| cap | No cap | 1994 | 10.5 | 197,604 |
| cap | No cap | 1996 | 9.4 | 297,838 |
| cap | No cap | 1998 | 12.3 | 470,028 |
| cap | No cap | 2000 | 9.1 | 598,971 |
| cap | No cap | 2002 | 24.5 | 794,413 |
| cap | No cap | 2004 | 8.4 | 1,033,327 |
| cap | No cap | 2006 | 7.2 | 1,142,451 |
| cap | No cap | 2008 | 7.0 | 1,425,885 |
| cap | No cap | 2010 | 7.7 | 1,409,984 |
| cap | No cap | 2012 | 4.8 | 1,805,776 |
| cap | No cap | 2014 | 6.6 | 1,597,010 |
| cap | No cap | 2016 | 4.6 | 1,978,112 |
| cap | No cap | 2018 | 3.5 | 2,161,252 |
| cap | No cap | 2020 | 1.8 | 3,483,649 |
| cap | No cap | 2022 | 2.8 | 3,082,400 |
| cap | No cap | 2024 | 6.3 | 2,533,588 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 1980 | 12.2 | 31,138 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 1982 | 9.6 | 25,207 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 1984 | 10.0 | 39,460 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 1986 | 11.1 | 45,211 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 1988 | 11.1 | 70,902 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 1990 | 11.5 | 111,512 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 1992 | 10.2 | 167,283 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 1994 | 10.5 | 197,604 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 1996 | 9.4 | 297,838 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 1998 | 10.9 | 470,028 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 2000 | 9.1 | 598,971 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 2002 | 11.0 | 794,413 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 2004 | 8.5 | 1,033,327 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 2006 | 8.7 | 1,142,451 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 2008 | 7.0 | 1,425,885 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 2010 | 8.9 | 1,409,984 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 2012 | 5.4 | 1,805,776 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 2014 | 7.3 | 1,597,010 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 2016 | 6.0 | 1,978,112 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 2018 | 4.6 | 2,161,252 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 2020 | 2.4 | 3,483,649 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 2022 | 3.3 | 3,082,400 |
| cap | Cap $10m | 2024 | 3.6 | 2,533,588 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 1980 | 12.2 | 31,138 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 1982 | 9.6 | 25,207 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 1984 | 10.0 | 39,460 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 1986 | 11.1 | 45,211 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 1988 | 11.1 | 70,902 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 1990 | 11.5 | 111,512 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 1992 | 10.3 | 167,283 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 1994 | 10.5 | 197,604 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 1996 | 9.5 | 297,838 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 1998 | 11.0 | 470,028 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 2000 | 9.6 | 598,971 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 2002 | 11.7 | 794,413 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 2004 | 8.9 | 1,033,327 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 2006 | 9.6 | 1,142,451 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 2008 | 7.3 | 1,425,885 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 2010 | 9.3 | 1,409,984 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 2012 | 5.6 | 1,805,776 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 2014 | 7.7 | 1,597,010 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 2016 | 6.1 | 1,978,112 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 2018 | 4.8 | 2,161,252 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 2020 | 2.4 | 3,483,649 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 2022 | 3.4 | 3,082,400 |
| cap | Cap $1m | 2024 | 3.4 | 2,533,588 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 1980 | 12.3 | 31,138 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 1982 | 9.8 | 25,207 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 1984 | 10.1 | 39,460 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 1986 | 11.2 | 45,211 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 1988 | 11.2 | 70,902 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 1990 | 11.5 | 111,512 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 1992 | 10.6 | 167,283 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 1994 | 10.8 | 197,604 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 1996 | 10.3 | 297,838 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 1998 | 11.8 | 470,028 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 2000 | 10.8 | 598,971 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 2002 | 12.3 | 794,413 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 2004 | 9.6 | 1,033,327 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 2006 | 10.4 | 1,142,451 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 2008 | 7.7 | 1,425,885 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 2010 | 9.6 | 1,409,984 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 2012 | 6.0 | 1,805,776 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 2014 | 8.2 | 1,597,010 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 2016 | 6.3 | 1,978,112 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 2018 | 4.9 | 2,161,252 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 2020 | 2.3 | 3,483,649 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 2022 | 3.2 | 3,082,400 |
| cap | Cap $100k | 2024 | 3.0 | 2,533,588 |
| side | Left of zero | 1980 | 17.5 | 10,873 |
| side | Left of zero | 1982 | 18.4 | 8,659 |
| side | Left of zero | 1984 | 17.4 | 14,647 |
| side | Left of zero | 1986 | 19.4 | 15,958 |
| side | Left of zero | 1988 | 17.1 | 28,380 |
| side | Left of zero | 1990 | 14.1 | 48,231 |
| side | Left of zero | 1992 | 12.7 | 77,711 |
| side | Left of zero | 1994 | 13.3 | 84,483 |
| side | Left of zero | 1996 | 13.8 | 122,604 |
| side | Left of zero | 1998 | 11.8 | 214,822 |
| side | Left of zero | 2000 | 11.9 | 271,239 |
| side | Left of zero | 2002 | 10.7 | 383,397 |
| side | Left of zero | 2004 | 7.9 | 544,413 |
| side | Left of zero | 2006 | 7.7 | 626,498 |
| side | Left of zero | 2008 | 5.8 | 832,129 |
| side | Left of zero | 2010 | 6.4 | 787,647 |
| side | Left of zero | 2012 | 3.9 | 1,143,079 |
| side | Left of zero | 2014 | 4.1 | 1,034,897 |
| side | Left of zero | 2016 | 2.7 | 1,369,414 |
| side | Left of zero | 2018 | 1.8 | 1,652,669 |
| side | Left of zero | 2020 | 1.1 | 2,633,734 |
| side | Left of zero | 2022 | 1.0 | 2,294,760 |
| side | Left of zero | 2024 | 0.8 | 1,916,881 |
| side | Right of zero | 1980 | 8.7 | 20,254 |
| side | Right of zero | 1982 | 9.0 | 16,544 |
| side | Right of zero | 1984 | 8.9 | 24,806 |
| side | Right of zero | 1986 | 9.4 | 29,244 |
| side | Right of zero | 1988 | 9.8 | 42,493 |
| side | Right of zero | 1990 | 9.2 | 63,248 |
| side | Right of zero | 1992 | 9.5 | 89,526 |
| side | Right of zero | 1994 | 8.7 | 113,075 |
| side | Right of zero | 1996 | 8.5 | 175,176 |
| side | Right of zero | 1998 | 8.6 | 255,107 |
| side | Right of zero | 2000 | 8.4 | 327,629 |
| side | Right of zero | 2002 | 8.5 | 410,878 |
| side | Right of zero | 2004 | 7.5 | 488,759 |
| side | Right of zero | 2006 | 8.0 | 515,775 |
| side | Right of zero | 2008 | 6.8 | 593,591 |
| side | Right of zero | 2010 | 6.8 | 622,156 |
| side | Right of zero | 2012 | 5.7 | 662,538 |
| side | Right of zero | 2014 | 6.1 | 561,957 |
| side | Right of zero | 2016 | 5.0 | 608,559 |
| side | Right of zero | 2018 | 4.8 | 508,476 |
| side | Right of zero | 2020 | 2.8 | 849,809 |
| side | Right of zero | 2022 | 2.4 | 787,550 |
| side | Right of zero | 2024 | 2.1 | 616,644 |

Views: Width of the center (check = band); Recipient filter (check = recipients); Dollar cap (check = cap); Each side of zero (check = side).

Note: The recipient filter is set once from the donor's whole record: a donor counts as reliable in every cycle in which they gave, including cycles before reaching the minimum number of recipients.

Note: Full counts of itemized donors: no sampling interval.

Source: Stanford DIME v4.0 (Bonica), election cycles 1980-2024; full counts of itemized individual donors, no weights

Data: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/figures/center_sensitivity.json

### Table 6. The share of federal candidates near the center fell from 13.3% in 1980 to 2.0% in 2020 and was 3.1% in 2024

Percent with a CFscore within 0.25 of zero: reliable donors, House and Senate candidates with a score, and seated winners, by election cycle

| Election cycle | Series | Share within 0.25 of zero (%) | Donors or candidates |
| ---: | --- | ---: | ---: |
| 1980 | Donors | 11.8 | 31,138 |
| 1982 | Donors | 12.3 | 25,207 |
| 1984 | Donors | 12.0 | 39,460 |
| 1986 | Donors | 13.0 | 45,211 |
| 1988 | Donors | 12.7 | 70,902 |
| 1990 | Donors | 11.3 | 111,512 |
| 1992 | Donors | 11.0 | 167,283 |
| 1994 | Donors | 10.7 | 197,604 |
| 1996 | Donors | 10.7 | 297,838 |
| 1998 | Donors | 10.1 | 470,028 |
| 2000 | Donors | 10.0 | 598,971 |
| 2002 | Donors | 9.6 | 794,413 |
| 2004 | Donors | 7.7 | 1,033,327 |
| 2006 | Donors | 7.8 | 1,142,451 |
| 2008 | Donors | 6.2 | 1,425,885 |
| 2010 | Donors | 6.6 | 1,409,984 |
| 2012 | Donors | 4.6 | 1,805,776 |
| 2014 | Donors | 4.8 | 1,597,010 |
| 2016 | Donors | 3.4 | 1,978,112 |
| 2018 | Donors | 2.5 | 2,161,252 |
| 2020 | Donors | 1.5 | 3,483,649 |
| 2022 | Donors | 1.4 | 3,082,400 |
| 2024 | Donors | 1.2 | 2,533,588 |
| 1980 | Candidates | 13.3 | 1,265 |
| 1982 | Candidates | 9.8 | 1,349 |
| 1984 | Candidates | 10.7 | 1,271 |
| 1986 | Candidates | 10.7 | 1,240 |
| 1988 | Candidates | 10.5 | 1,271 |
| 1990 | Candidates | 12.9 | 1,290 |
| 1992 | Candidates | 12.4 | 1,793 |
| 1994 | Candidates | 11.4 | 1,787 |
| 1996 | Candidates | 9.4 | 1,762 |
| 1998 | Candidates | 9.3 | 1,402 |
| 2000 | Candidates | 8.3 | 1,443 |
| 2002 | Candidates | 10.0 | 1,474 |
| 2004 | Candidates | 7.8 | 1,472 |
| 2006 | Candidates | 7.5 | 1,525 |
| 2008 | Candidates | 8.3 | 1,635 |
| 2010 | Candidates | 6.8 | 2,113 |
| 2012 | Candidates | 5.3 | 1,957 |
| 2014 | Candidates | 4.3 | 1,780 |
| 2016 | Candidates | 4.7 | 1,750 |
| 2018 | Candidates | 2.9 | 2,336 |
| 2020 | Candidates | 2.0 | 2,543 |
| 2022 | Candidates | 2.6 | 2,745 |
| 2024 | Candidates | 3.1 | 2,329 |
| 1980 | Winners | 16.2 | 451 |
| 1982 | Winners | 12.1 | 461 |
| 1984 | Winners | 13.3 | 459 |
| 1986 | Winners | 13.8 | 456 |
| 1988 | Winners | 13.2 | 463 |
| 1990 | Winners | 16.2 | 470 |
| 1992 | Winners | 13.9 | 468 |
| 1994 | Winners | 13.4 | 464 |
| 1996 | Winners | 9.3 | 452 |
| 1998 | Winners | 10.8 | 481 |
| 2000 | Winners | 10.0 | 470 |
| 2002 | Winners | 9.6 | 478 |
| 2004 | Winners | 9.0 | 469 |
| 2006 | Winners | 8.4 | 476 |
| 2008 | Winners | 11.4 | 474 |
| 2010 | Winners | 7.6 | 476 |
| 2012 | Winners | 4.7 | 471 |
| 2014 | Winners | 4.1 | 468 |
| 2016 | Winners | 3.8 | 468 |
| 2018 | Winners | 3.1 | 459 |
| 2020 | Winners | 1.5 | 469 |
| 2022 | Winners | 2.8 | 469 |

Note: Candidate scores are the dynamic CFscore, estimated from the donors who give to each candidate, so the candidate and donor lines rest on the same giving records. The candidate lines cover federal House and Senate candidates only, and the donor line covers gifts to federal and state recipients.

Note: The rise after 2020 rests on small counts: 51 of 2,543 candidates in 2020 and 72 of 2,329 in 2024, and among seated winners 7 of 469 in 2020 and 13 of 469 in 2022.

Note: Candidates with a score are 86% to 98% of the major-party House and Senate candidates in the file, by cycle. Candidates without a score are not plotted.

Note: General-election winners are not coded for 2024 in this DIME release. Full counts: no sampling interval.

Source: Stanford DIME v4.0 (Bonica), election cycles 1980-2024; full counts of federal House and Senate candidates, no weights

Data: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/figures/candidate_center.json

### Table 7. The parties moved apart on both scales, but CFscores show the Democratic median moving further and roll-call scores the Republican median

Median score and 25th to 75th percentile range of House and Senate candidates by party, by election cycle; other views: seated members by CFscore and by roll-call votes

| View | Party | Election cycle | Median | 25th percentile | 75th percentile | Candidates or members |
| --- | --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| cf | Democratic | 1980 | −0.43 | −0.67 | −0.06 | 679 |
| cf | Republican | 1980 | 0.97 | 0.72 | 1.12 | 586 |
| cf | Democratic | 1982 | −0.56 | −0.73 | −0.24 | 730 |
| cf | Republican | 1982 | 0.95 | 0.73 | 1.12 | 619 |
| cf | Democratic | 1984 | −0.55 | −0.72 | −0.27 | 695 |
| cf | Republican | 1984 | 0.96 | 0.68 | 1.14 | 576 |
| cf | Democratic | 1986 | −0.53 | −0.71 | −0.25 | 682 |
| cf | Republican | 1986 | 0.95 | 0.65 | 1.15 | 558 |
| cf | Democratic | 1988 | −0.53 | −0.71 | −0.27 | 705 |
| cf | Republican | 1988 | 0.97 | 0.66 | 1.18 | 566 |
| cf | Democratic | 1990 | −0.50 | −0.72 | −0.22 | 696 |
| cf | Republican | 1990 | 0.94 | 0.65 | 1.18 | 594 |
| cf | Democratic | 1992 | −0.51 | −0.74 | −0.20 | 924 |
| cf | Republican | 1992 | 0.92 | 0.63 | 1.17 | 869 |
| cf | Democratic | 1994 | −0.52 | −0.75 | −0.21 | 876 |
| cf | Republican | 1994 | 0.99 | 0.70 | 1.20 | 911 |
| cf | Democratic | 1996 | −0.62 | −0.84 | −0.32 | 884 |
| cf | Republican | 1996 | 1.01 | 0.71 | 1.22 | 878 |
| cf | Democratic | 1998 | −0.57 | −0.80 | −0.32 | 680 |
| cf | Republican | 1998 | 1.02 | 0.73 | 1.24 | 722 |
| cf | Democratic | 2000 | −0.59 | −0.83 | −0.35 | 695 |
| cf | Republican | 2000 | 1.02 | 0.74 | 1.21 | 748 |
| cf | Democratic | 2002 | −0.59 | −0.79 | −0.31 | 724 |
| cf | Republican | 2002 | 1.00 | 0.74 | 1.22 | 750 |
| cf | Democratic | 2004 | −0.69 | −0.92 | −0.38 | 697 |
| cf | Republican | 2004 | 1.03 | 0.76 | 1.25 | 775 |
| cf | Democratic | 2006 | −0.74 | −0.98 | −0.41 | 829 |
| cf | Republican | 2006 | 1.08 | 0.81 | 1.31 | 696 |
| cf | Democratic | 2008 | −0.71 | −0.98 | −0.40 | 859 |
| cf | Republican | 2008 | 1.09 | 0.82 | 1.31 | 776 |
| cf | Democratic | 2010 | −0.73 | −0.97 | −0.43 | 863 |
| cf | Republican | 2010 | 1.19 | 0.94 | 1.39 | 1,250 |
| cf | Democratic | 2012 | −0.77 | −1.00 | −0.47 | 907 |
| cf | Republican | 2012 | 1.15 | 0.91 | 1.36 | 1,050 |
| cf | Democratic | 2014 | −0.81 | −1.00 | −0.53 | 817 |
| cf | Republican | 2014 | 1.17 | 0.95 | 1.36 | 963 |
| cf | Democratic | 2016 | −0.84 | −1.04 | −0.57 | 851 |
| cf | Republican | 2016 | 1.16 | 0.94 | 1.40 | 899 |
| cf | Democratic | 2018 | −0.96 | −1.08 | −0.76 | 1,404 |
| cf | Republican | 2018 | 1.18 | 0.92 | 1.42 | 932 |
| cf | Democratic | 2020 | −0.98 | −1.07 | −0.81 | 1,370 |
| cf | Republican | 2020 | 1.33 | 1.11 | 1.49 | 1,173 |
| cf | Democratic | 2022 | −0.98 | −1.07 | −0.77 | 1,305 |
| cf | Republican | 2022 | 1.37 | 1.12 | 1.52 | 1,440 |
| cf | Democratic | 2024 | −0.96 | −1.06 | −0.76 | 1,166 |
| cf | Republican | 2024 | 1.35 | 1.07 | 1.52 | 1,163 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 1980 | −0.43 | −0.62 | −0.12 | 249 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 1982 | −0.51 | −0.68 | −0.24 | 279 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 1984 | −0.45 | −0.64 | −0.18 | 259 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 1986 | −0.45 | −0.61 | −0.24 | 265 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 1988 | −0.47 | −0.61 | −0.29 | 272 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 1990 | −0.43 | −0.60 | −0.21 | 284 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 1992 | −0.46 | −0.62 | −0.20 | 277 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 1994 | −0.43 | −0.61 | −0.21 | 219 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 1996 | −0.50 | −0.67 | −0.31 | 207 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 1998 | −0.49 | −0.66 | −0.28 | 232 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 2000 | −0.49 | −0.66 | −0.26 | 224 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 2002 | −0.50 | −0.68 | −0.30 | 220 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 2004 | −0.53 | −0.72 | −0.32 | 217 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 2006 | −0.59 | −0.75 | −0.35 | 257 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 2008 | −0.54 | −0.73 | −0.30 | 276 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 2010 | −0.56 | −0.75 | −0.35 | 207 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 2012 | −0.66 | −0.81 | −0.46 | 226 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 2014 | −0.61 | −0.81 | −0.46 | 197 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 2016 | −0.65 | −0.81 | −0.44 | 205 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 2018 | −0.75 | −0.90 | −0.53 | 254 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 2020 | −0.77 | −0.92 | −0.55 | 237 |
| cfseat | Democratic | 2022 | −0.78 | −0.93 | −0.60 | 222 |
| cfseat | Republican | 1980 | 0.94 | 0.70 | 1.08 | 196 |
| cfseat | Republican | 1982 | 0.88 | 0.70 | 1.04 | 176 |
| cfseat | Republican | 1984 | 0.88 | 0.66 | 1.02 | 195 |
| cfseat | Republican | 1986 | 0.82 | 0.59 | 1.00 | 186 |
| cfseat | Republican | 1988 | 0.82 | 0.61 | 1.03 | 185 |
| cfseat | Republican | 1990 | 0.84 | 0.60 | 1.03 | 182 |
| cfseat | Republican | 1992 | 0.90 | 0.69 | 1.07 | 188 |
| cfseat | Republican | 1994 | 0.99 | 0.78 | 1.17 | 241 |
| cfseat | Republican | 1996 | 1.00 | 0.76 | 1.14 | 235 |
| cfseat | Republican | 1998 | 0.97 | 0.73 | 1.12 | 237 |
| cfseat | Republican | 2000 | 0.98 | 0.78 | 1.13 | 227 |
| cfseat | Republican | 2002 | 0.97 | 0.75 | 1.14 | 248 |
| cfseat | Republican | 2004 | 0.96 | 0.75 | 1.13 | 246 |
| cfseat | Republican | 2006 | 0.99 | 0.78 | 1.12 | 209 |
| cfseat | Republican | 2008 | 1.05 | 0.85 | 1.18 | 190 |
| cfseat | Republican | 2010 | 1.10 | 0.88 | 1.22 | 266 |
| cfseat | Republican | 2012 | 1.07 | 0.92 | 1.19 | 241 |
| cfseat | Republican | 2014 | 1.08 | 0.93 | 1.21 | 268 |
| cfseat | Republican | 2016 | 1.09 | 0.88 | 1.19 | 260 |
| cfseat | Republican | 2018 | 1.11 | 0.92 | 1.22 | 203 |
| cfseat | Republican | 2020 | 1.18 | 1.02 | 1.32 | 227 |
| cfseat | Republican | 2022 | 1.20 | 1.05 | 1.37 | 239 |
| dw | Democratic | 1980 | −0.32 | −0.42 | −0.19 | 249 |
| dw | Democratic | 1982 | −0.32 | −0.42 | −0.19 | 279 |
| dw | Democratic | 1984 | −0.31 | −0.41 | −0.19 | 259 |
| dw | Democratic | 1986 | −0.32 | −0.42 | −0.20 | 265 |
| dw | Democratic | 1988 | −0.32 | −0.42 | −0.20 | 272 |
| dw | Democratic | 1990 | −0.32 | −0.42 | −0.19 | 284 |
| dw | Democratic | 1992 | −0.32 | −0.45 | −0.22 | 277 |
| dw | Democratic | 1994 | −0.38 | −0.47 | −0.26 | 219 |
| dw | Democratic | 1996 | −0.38 | −0.47 | −0.29 | 207 |
| dw | Democratic | 1998 | −0.38 | −0.47 | −0.29 | 232 |
| dw | Democratic | 2000 | −0.38 | −0.46 | −0.29 | 224 |
| dw | Democratic | 2002 | −0.38 | −0.47 | −0.30 | 220 |
| dw | Democratic | 2004 | −0.38 | −0.47 | −0.30 | 217 |
| dw | Democratic | 2006 | −0.37 | −0.45 | −0.27 | 257 |
| dw | Democratic | 2008 | −0.35 | −0.45 | −0.26 | 276 |
| dw | Democratic | 2010 | −0.40 | −0.47 | −0.32 | 207 |
| dw | Democratic | 2012 | −0.39 | −0.46 | −0.30 | 226 |
| dw | Democratic | 2014 | −0.40 | −0.47 | −0.32 | 197 |
| dw | Democratic | 2016 | −0.39 | −0.45 | −0.32 | 205 |
| dw | Democratic | 2018 | −0.38 | −0.45 | −0.29 | 254 |
| dw | Democratic | 2020 | −0.38 | −0.45 | −0.30 | 237 |
| dw | Democratic | 2022 | −0.38 | −0.45 | −0.30 | 222 |
| dw | Republican | 1980 | 0.31 | 0.22 | 0.39 | 196 |
| dw | Republican | 1982 | 0.33 | 0.23 | 0.40 | 176 |
| dw | Republican | 1984 | 0.34 | 0.24 | 0.42 | 195 |
| dw | Republican | 1986 | 0.34 | 0.23 | 0.43 | 186 |
| dw | Republican | 1988 | 0.34 | 0.23 | 0.44 | 185 |
| dw | Republican | 1990 | 0.34 | 0.23 | 0.43 | 182 |
| dw | Republican | 1992 | 0.38 | 0.26 | 0.47 | 188 |
| dw | Republican | 1994 | 0.38 | 0.28 | 0.49 | 241 |
| dw | Republican | 1996 | 0.40 | 0.31 | 0.50 | 235 |
| dw | Republican | 1998 | 0.38 | 0.30 | 0.49 | 237 |
| dw | Republican | 2000 | 0.40 | 0.31 | 0.50 | 227 |
| dw | Republican | 2002 | 0.40 | 0.30 | 0.51 | 248 |
| dw | Republican | 2004 | 0.41 | 0.32 | 0.52 | 246 |
| dw | Republican | 2006 | 0.42 | 0.33 | 0.53 | 209 |
| dw | Republican | 2008 | 0.43 | 0.34 | 0.54 | 190 |
| dw | Republican | 2010 | 0.45 | 0.35 | 0.57 | 266 |
| dw | Republican | 2012 | 0.49 | 0.38 | 0.58 | 241 |
| dw | Republican | 2014 | 0.49 | 0.37 | 0.58 | 268 |
| dw | Republican | 2016 | 0.49 | 0.38 | 0.59 | 260 |
| dw | Republican | 2018 | 0.51 | 0.42 | 0.61 | 203 |
| dw | Republican | 2020 | 0.50 | 0.40 | 0.61 | 227 |
| dw | Republican | 2022 | 0.51 | 0.41 | 0.63 | 239 |

Views: Candidate CFscores (panel = cf); Seated members, CFscores (panel = cfseat); Seated members, roll-call scores (panel = dw).

Note: Bands run from the 25th to the 75th percentile of candidates or members and are not confidence intervals. Full counts: no sampling interval.

Note: Roll-call scores (DW-NOMINATE) come with the DIME candidate file for seated members; 2024 winners are not coded.

Source: Stanford DIME v4.0 (Bonica), election cycles 1980-2024; full counts of federal House and Senate candidates, no weights

Data: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/figures/candidate_medians.json

### Table 8. The donor share near the center fell from 7.8% to 1.2% while self-described moderates stayed between 30.8% and 39.0%

Each series as a percent of its own 2006 value: reliable donors within 0.25 of zero (DIME) and adults who call themselves moderate (CES), by election year

| Election year | Series | Percent | Index (2006 = 100) | Interval low (index) | Interval high (index) | Donors or respondents |
| ---: | --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
| 2006 | Donors | 7.8 | 100.0 | n/a | n/a | 1,142,451 |
| 2008 | Donors | 6.2 | 79.4 | n/a | n/a | 1,425,885 |
| 2010 | Donors | 6.6 | 83.6 | n/a | n/a | 1,409,984 |
| 2012 | Donors | 4.6 | 58.6 | n/a | n/a | 1,805,776 |
| 2014 | Donors | 4.8 | 61.3 | n/a | n/a | 1,597,010 |
| 2016 | Donors | 3.4 | 43.5 | n/a | n/a | 1,978,112 |
| 2018 | Donors | 2.5 | 32.2 | n/a | n/a | 2,161,252 |
| 2020 | Donors | 1.5 | 19.7 | n/a | n/a | 3,483,649 |
| 2022 | Donors | 1.4 | 17.8 | n/a | n/a | 3,082,400 |
| 2024 | Donors | 1.2 | 14.8 | n/a | n/a | 2,533,588 |
| 2006 | Moderates | 39.0 | 100.0 | 98.5 | 101.5 | 34,189 |
| 2008 | Moderates | 35.1 | 89.8 | 88.2 | 91.5 | 30,436 |
| 2010 | Moderates | 34.8 | 89.1 | 87.4 | 90.8 | 52,342 |
| 2012 | Moderates | 36.4 | 93.1 | 91.5 | 94.7 | 50,564 |
| 2014 | Moderates | 37.6 | 96.3 | 94.7 | 98.0 | 51,022 |
| 2016 | Moderates | 38.1 | 97.7 | 96.3 | 99.1 | 59,815 |
| 2018 | Moderates | 30.8 | 78.8 | 77.3 | 80.2 | 54,950 |
| 2020 | Moderates | 33.4 | 85.5 | 84.1 | 87.0 | 56,208 |
| 2022 | Moderates | 34.5 | 88.3 | 86.8 | 89.8 | 55,606 |
| 2024 | Moderates | 35.4 | 90.6 | 88.8 | 92.4 | 56,384 |

Note: This is a coarse comparison of direction. It does not date the change in either series, because the survey series starts in 2006, after part of the donor fall.

Note: The donor line is a full count and has no interval. The survey band is model based (Kish effective sample size) and ignores clustering; it is the interval of the survey share divided by the 2006 estimate, so it leaves out the uncertainty of the 2006 estimate itself.

Source: Stanford DIME v4.0 (Bonica), election cycles 2006-2024, full counts with no weights; Cooperative Election Study, election years 2006-2024, weighted with the single-wave survey weight

Data: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/figures/moderates_comparison.json

## All estimates

Every fact in facts.json (172), sorted by id.

| Fact id | Value | Unit | Estimand | Population | Period | Interval | n | Weights | Source | Note |
| --- | ---: | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---: | --- | --- | --- |
| all_1980 | 10.5% | percent of active donors in the group | share of active donors within the center band | all individual donors with a score, projected scores included | 1980 |   | 154,785 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| all_2024 | 1.7% | percent of active donors in the group | share of active donors within the center band | all individual donors with a score, projected scores included | 2024 |   | 7,043,771 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| b10_1980 | 4.8% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors within a band of 0.10 around zero | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 |   | 31,138 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| b10_2024 | 0.4% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors within a band of 0.10 around zero | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| b50_1980 | 26.7% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors within a band of 0.50 around zero | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 |   | 31,138 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| b50_2024 | 2.7% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors within a band of 0.50 around zero | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| band | 0.25 | CFscore units, distance from zero | half-width of the band around zero that counts as the center | definition of the center | election cycles 1980-2024 |   |   | none (constant) | DIME |   |
| band_high | 0.50 | CFscore units, distance from zero | half-width of the wide check band | widest band checked | election cycles 1980-2024 |   |   | none (constant) | DIME |   |
| band_low | 0.10 | CFscore units, distance from zero | half-width of the narrow check band | narrowest band checked | election cycles 1980-2024 |   |   | none (constant) | DIME |   |
| both_of_1980 | 17.7% | percent of the 1980 pool | share of the 1980 pool that is also active in 2024 | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 and 2024 |   | 31,138 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| cand_1980 | 13.3% | percent of candidates | share of candidates with a CFscore within the center band | House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 1980 |   | 1,265 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| cand_1988 | 10.5% | percent of candidates | share of candidates with a CFscore within the center band | House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 1988 |   | 1,271 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| cand_1990 | 12.9% | percent of candidates | share of candidates with a CFscore within the center band | House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 1990 |   | 1,290 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| cand_2020 | 2.0% | percent of candidates | share of candidates with a CFscore within the center band | House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 2020 |   | 2,543 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| cand_2022 | 2.6% | percent of candidates | share of candidates with a CFscore within the center band | House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 2022 |   | 2,745 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| cand_2024 | 3.1% | percent of candidates | share of candidates with a CFscore within the center band | House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 2024 |   | 2,329 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| cand_cov_max | 98% | percent of candidates in the file | share of candidates with a dynamic CFscore | House and Senate candidates of the two major parties in the DIME candidate file, one record per candidate and cycle | highest cycle, 2018 |   | 2,385 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| cand_cov_min | 86% | percent of candidates in the file | share of candidates with a dynamic CFscore | House and Senate candidates of the two major parties in the DIME candidate file, one record per candidate and cycle | lowest cycle, 1988 |   | 1,477 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| cand_gap_1980 | 1.40 | CFscore units | Republican median minus Democratic median CFscore | House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 1980 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| cand_gap_2024 | 2.31 | CFscore units | Republican median minus Democratic median CFscore | House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 2024 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| cand_low_cov_max | 92% | percent of candidates with under $10,000 in receipts | share of candidates with under $10,000 in receipts who have a dynamic CFscore | House and Senate candidates of the two major parties in the DIME candidate file, one record per candidate and cycle | highest cycle, 2020 |   | 644 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| cand_low_cov_min | 63% | percent of candidates with under $10,000 in receipts | share of candidates with under $10,000 in receipts who have a dynamic CFscore | House and Senate candidates of the two major parties in the DIME candidate file, one record per candidate and cycle | lowest cycle, 1988 |   | 540 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| cap_dollars | $1 million | real 2024 dollars per donor and cycle | cap applied to each donor's itemized dollars in a cycle | cap on a donor's dollars in the dollar-weighted shares | election cycles 1980-2024 |   |   | none (constant) | DIME |   |
| ces_2006 | 39.0% | percent of respondents | weighted share who call themselves moderate | adult respondents to the Cooperative Election Study who placed themselves on the five-point scale | 2006 | 95% CI 38.5% to 39.6% | 34,189 | weight (single-wave survey weight) | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| ces_2016 | 38.1% | percent of respondents | weighted share who call themselves moderate | adult respondents to the Cooperative Election Study who placed themselves on the five-point scale | 2016 | 95% CI 37.6% to 38.7% | 59,815 | weight (single-wave survey weight) | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| ces_2024 | 35.4% | percent of respondents | weighted share who call themselves moderate | adult respondents to the Cooperative Election Study who placed themselves on the five-point scale | 2024 | 95% CI 34.7% to 36.1% | 56,384 | weight (single-wave survey weight) | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| ces_diff | −3.7 | percentage points | change in the weighted share who call themselves moderate | adult respondents to the Cooperative Election Study who placed themselves on the five-point scale | 2006 to 2024 | 95% CI −4.6 to −2.8 | 90,573 | weight (single-wave survey weight) | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| ces_diff_2018 | −7.4 | percentage points | change in the weighted share who call themselves moderate | adult respondents to the Cooperative Election Study who placed themselves on the five-point scale | 2016 to 2018 | 95% CI −8.2 to −6.6 | 114,765 | weight (single-wave survey weight) | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| ces_low | 30.8% | percent of respondents | weighted share who call themselves moderate | adult respondents to the Cooperative Election Study who placed themselves on the five-point scale | 2018 | 95% CI 30.2% to 31.3% | 54,950 | weight (single-wave survey weight) | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| ces_low_year | 2018 | year | election year with the lowest moderate share | Cooperative Election Study | 2006-2024 |   |   | none (constant) | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| ces_rel_2006 | 9% | percent of the 2006 share | relative fall in the weighted share who call themselves moderate | adult respondents to the Cooperative Election Study who placed themselves on the five-point scale | 2006 to 2024 |   |   | weight (single-wave survey weight) | Cooperative Election Study |   |
| cfseat_dem_1980 | −0.43 | CFscore units | median dynamic CFscore of the party's seated members with a roll-call score | Democratic members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call score | 1980 |   | 249 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| cfseat_dem_2022 | −0.78 | CFscore units | median dynamic CFscore of the party's seated members with a roll-call score | Democratic members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call score | 2022 |   | 222 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| cfseat_rep_1980 | +0.94 | CFscore units | median dynamic CFscore of the party's seated members with a roll-call score | Republican members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call score | 1980 |   | 196 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| cfseat_rep_2022 | +1.20 | CFscore units | median dynamic CFscore of the party's seated members with a roll-call score | Republican members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call score | 2022 |   | 239 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| change_after_2002 | −8.4 | percentage points | change in the share of active reliable donors within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2002 to 2024 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| coh_1980 | 11.8% | percent of the group's reliable donors | share of the group within the center band | reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cycle | first gift in 1980 |   | 31,138 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| coh_2000 | 8.6% | percent of the group's reliable donors | share of the group within the center band | reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cycle | first gift in 2000 |   | 206,419 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| coh_2010_max | 3.0% | percent of the group's reliable donors | highest share within the center band among the groups of 2010 to 2024 | reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cycle | first gift from 2010 to 2024 |   | 232,556 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| coh_2012 | 1.2% | percent of the group's reliable donors | share of the group within the center band | reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cycle | first gift in 2012 |   | 387,766 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| coh_2024 | 0.24% | percent of the group's reliable donors | share of the group within the center band | reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cycle | first gift in 2024 |   | 65,445 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| coh_early_max | 13.4% | percent of the group's reliable donors | highest share within the center band among the groups of 1980 to 1988 | reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cycle | first gift from 1980 to 1988 |   | 17,042 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| coh_early_min | 11.8% | percent of the group's reliable donors | lowest share within the center band among the groups of 1980 to 1988 | reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cycle | first gift from 1980 to 1988 |   | 31,138 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| coh_late_max | 10.1% | percent of the group's reliable donors | highest share within the center band among the groups of 1990 to 2024 | reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cycle | first gift from 1990 to 2024 |   | 123,517 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| coh_r2_2024 | 0.96% | percent of the group's donors | share of the group within the center band | donors with a score from 2 or more recipients whose first itemized gift was in 2024 | first gift in 2024 |   | 593,408 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| coh_rel_2012 | 16.1% | percent of donors first seen in 2012 | share who are reliable donors | donors whose first itemized gift was in 2012 | first gift in 2012 |   | 2,412,170 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| coh_rel_2024 | 2.7% | percent of donors first seen in 2024 | share who are reliable donors | donors whose first itemized gift was in 2024 | first gift in 2024 |   | 2,459,713 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dec_entry | −11.2 | percentage points of the near-center share | contribution of donors who joined the pool to the change in the near-center share (average of two orders) | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 to 2024, summed over 22 cycle-to-cycle steps |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dec_entry_a | −12.8 | percentage points of the near-center share | contribution of joiners when leavers are removed first | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 to 2024, summed over 22 cycle-to-cycle steps |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dec_entry_b | −9.6 | percentage points of the near-center share | contribution of joiners when joiners are added first | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 to 2024, summed over 22 cycle-to-cycle steps |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dec_exit | +0.6 | percentage points of the near-center share | contribution of donors who left the pool to the change in the near-center share (average of two orders) | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 to 2024, summed over 22 cycle-to-cycle steps |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dec_exit_a | +2.2 | percentage points of the near-center share | contribution of leavers when leavers are removed first | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 to 2024, summed over 22 cycle-to-cycle steps |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dec_exit_b | −1.1 | percentage points of the near-center share | contribution of leavers when joiners are added first | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 to 2024, summed over 22 cycle-to-cycle steps |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dec_total | −10.6 | percentage points | change in the share of active reliable donors within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 to 2024 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dem_med_1980 | −0.43 | CFscore units | median CFscore of the party's candidates | Democratic candidates: House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 1980 |   | 679 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dem_med_2024 | −0.96 | CFscore units | median CFscore of the party's candidates | Democratic candidates: House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 2024 |   | 1,166 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dem_p75_1980 | −0.06 | CFscore units | 75th percentile CFscore of the party's candidates, the edge of the party nearest zero | Democratic candidates: House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 1980 |   | 679 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dem_p75_2024 | −0.76 | CFscore units | 75th percentile CFscore of the party's candidates, the edge of the party nearest zero | Democratic candidates: House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 2024 |   | 1,166 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dleft_1980 | 35.9% | percent of itemized dollars | share of itemized dollars from reliable donors left of zero, each donor capped at $1 million | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 |   | 31,138 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dleft_2024 | 67.4% | percent of itemized dollars | share of itemized dollars from reliable donors left of zero, each donor capped at $1 million | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dollar_ratio_2024 | 2.9 | ratio of the dollar share to the donor share | capped dollar share within the center band divided by the donor share within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| donor_change_2006 | −6.7 | percentage points | change in the share of active reliable donors within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2006 to 2024 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| donor_rel_2006 | 85% | percent of the 2006 share | relative fall in the share of active reliable donors within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2006 to 2024 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| donor_rise_max | 0.3 | percentage points | largest rise from one cycle to the next in the share of active reliable donors within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2004 to 2024 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| drop_1980_2024 | 90% | percent of the 1980 share | relative fall in the share of active reliable donors within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 to 2024 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| drop_1986_2002 | 26% | percent of the 1986 share | relative fall in the share of active reliable donors within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1986 to 2002 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| drop_2002_2024 | 88% | percent of the 2002 share | relative fall in the share of active reliable donors within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2002 to 2024 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dshare_1980 | 12.2% | percent of itemized dollars | share of itemized dollars from reliable donors within the center band, each donor capped at $1 million | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 |   | 31,138 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dshare_2000 | 9.6% | percent of itemized dollars | share of itemized dollars from reliable donors within the center band, each donor capped at $1 million | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2000 |   | 598,971 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dshare_2002_cap | 11.7% | percent of itemized dollars | share of itemized dollars within the center band, each donor capped at $1 million | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2002 |   | 794,413 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dshare_2002_nocap | 24.5% | percent of itemized dollars | share of itemized dollars from reliable donors within the center band, no cap | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2002 |   | 794,413 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dshare_2004 | 8.9% | percent of itemized dollars | share of itemized dollars from reliable donors within the center band, each donor capped at $1 million | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2004 |   | 1,033,327 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dshare_2024 | 3.4% | percent of itemized dollars | share of itemized dollars from reliable donors within the center band, each donor capped at $1 million | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dshare_2024_100k | 3.0% | percent of itemized dollars | share of itemized dollars within the center band, each donor capped at $100,000 | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dshare_2024_10m | 3.6% | percent of itemized dollars | share of itemized dollars within the center band, each donor capped at $10 million | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dshare_2024_nocap | 6.3% | percent of itemized dollars | share of itemized dollars from reliable donors within the center band, no cap | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dw_dem_1980 | −0.32 | DW-NOMINATE first-dimension units | median roll-call score of the party's seated members | Democratic members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call score | 1980 |   | 249 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dw_dem_2022 | −0.38 | DW-NOMINATE first-dimension units | median roll-call score of the party's seated members | Democratic members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call score | 2022 |   | 222 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dw_gap_1980 | 0.63 | DW-NOMINATE first-dimension units | Republican median minus Democratic median DW-NOMINATE score | seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call score | 1980 |   | 445 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dw_gap_2022 | 0.90 | DW-NOMINATE first-dimension units | Republican median minus Democratic median DW-NOMINATE score | seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call score | 2022 |   | 461 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dw_r_2022 | +0.95 | correlation coefficient, from -1 to +1 | correlation across members of the dynamic CFscore and DW-NOMINATE | seated House and Senate members with a CFscore and a roll-call score | 2022 |   | 461 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dw_r_dem_2022 | −0.03 | correlation coefficient, from -1 to +1 | correlation within the party across seated members of the dynamic CFscore and DW-NOMINATE | Democratic members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call score | 2022 |   | 222 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dw_r_rep_2022 | +0.52 | correlation coefficient, from -1 to +1 | correlation within the party across seated members of the dynamic CFscore and DW-NOMINATE | Republican members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call score | 2022 |   | 239 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dw_rep_1980 | +0.31 | DW-NOMINATE first-dimension units | median roll-call score of the party's seated members | Republican members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call score | 1980 |   | 196 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| dw_rep_2022 | +0.51 | DW-NOMINATE first-dimension units | median roll-call score of the party's seated members | Republican members: seated House and Senate members of the two major parties with a roll-call score | 2022 |   | 239 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| first_frac_2020 | 24.9% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cycle | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2020 |   | 3,483,649 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| first_frac_2024 | 2.6% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cycle | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| first_time_2008 | 2.6% | percent of first-time donors | share of first-time donors within the center band | reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cycle | 2008 |   | 365,960 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| first_time_2024 | 0.24% | percent of first-time donors | share of first-time donors within the center band | reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cycle | 2024 |   | 65,445 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| interior_1980 | 45.6% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the outer limit of zero (center and both sides of it) | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 |   | 31,138 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| interior_2024 | 6.1% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the outer limit of zero (center and both sides of it) | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| joined_first_frac | 56.6% | percent of joiners | share of joiners whose first itemized gift was in the cycle they joined | reliable donors active in a cycle and not in the cycle before | 1982 to 2024, all steps |   | 8,477,665 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| left_in_1980 | 17.5% | percent of active reliable donors left of zero | share of donors left of zero who are within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 |   | 10,873 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| left_in_2024 | 0.8% | percent of active reliable donors left of zero | share of donors left of zero who are within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 1,916,881 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| left_share_1980 | 34.9% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors with a CFscore below zero | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 |   | 31,138 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| left_share_2024 | 75.7% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors with a CFscore below zero | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| low_receipts | $10,000 | dollars of total receipts | threshold of total receipts below which a candidate counts as low-receipts in the coverage check | definition of a low-receipts candidate | election cycles 1980-2024 |   |   | none (constant) | DIME |   |
| max_near_2002 | $1.02 billion | real 2024 dollars | largest total of a single near-center donor in the cycle, no cap | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2002 |   | 1 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| median_1980 | +0.62 | CFscore units | median CFscore of active reliable donors | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 |   | 31,138 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| median_2002 | +0.10 | CFscore units | median CFscore of active reliable donors | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2002 |   | 794,413 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| median_2004 | −0.17 | CFscore units | median CFscore of active reliable donors | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2004 |   | 1,033,327 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| median_2024 | −0.98 | CFscore units | median CFscore of active reliable donors | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| min_recip | 8 | distinct recipients | minimum number of distinct recipients for the reliable flag | definition of a reliable donor | career |   |   | none (constant) | DIME |   |
| n_all_1980 | 154,785 | donors | count of active donors, reliable or not | all individual donors with a score and an itemized gift in the cycle | 1980 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_all_2024 | 7,043,771 | donors | count of active donors, reliable or not | all individual donors with a score and an itemized gift in the cycle | 2024 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_both | 5,509 | donors | count of donors in both pools | reliable donors active in both 1980 and 2024 | 1980 and 2024 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_cand_2020 | 2,543 | candidates | count of candidates with a dynamic CFscore | House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 2020 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_cand_2024 | 2,329 | candidates | count of candidates with a dynamic CFscore | House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 2024 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_cand_near_2020 | 51 | candidates | count of candidates with a CFscore within the center band | House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 2020 |   | 2,543 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_cand_near_2024 | 72 | candidates | count of candidates with a CFscore within the center band | House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 2024 |   | 2,329 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_cycles | 23 | election cycles | count of two-year election cycles | cycles from 1980 to 2024 | election cycles 1980-2024 |   |   | none (constant) | DIME |   |
| n_donor_rises | 3 | election cycles | count of cycles after 2002 in which the donor share is above the share of the cycle before | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2004 to 2024 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_first_2020 | 868,613 | donors | count of reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cycle | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2020 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_first_2022 | 139,196 | donors | count of reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in the cycle | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2022 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_first_2024 | 65,445 | donors | count of reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in 2024 | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_left_in_1980 | 1,898 | donors | count of active reliable donors within the center band and left of zero | reliable donors within the center band on the left of zero | 1980 |   | 10,873 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_left_in_2024 | 16,234 | donors | count of active reliable donors within the center band and left of zero | reliable donors within the center band on the left of zero | 2024 |   | 1,916,881 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_near_1980 | 3,678 | donors | count of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center band | reliable donors within the center band active in the cycle | 1980 |   | 31,138 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_near_2024 | 29,446 | donors | count of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center band | reliable donors within the center band active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_near_peak | 92,461 | donors | highest count of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center band | reliable donors within the center band active in the cycle | highest cycle, 2010 |   | 1,409,984 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_near_peak_year | 2010 | year | cycle with the most near-center donors | reliable donors within the center band | 1980-2024 |   |   | none (constant) | DIME |   |
| n_over_cap_2002 | 456 | donors | count of reliable donors whose itemized dollars in the cycle exceed the cap | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2002 |   | 794,413 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_over_cap_2024 | 358 | donors | count of reliable donors whose itemized dollars in the cycle exceed the cap | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_rel_1980 | 31,138 | donors | count of reliable donors with an itemized gift in the cycle | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_rel_2002 | 794,413 | donors | count of reliable donors with an itemized gift in the cycle | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2002 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_rel_2024 | 2,533,588 | donors | count of reliable donors with an itemized gift in the cycle | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_right_in_1980 | 1,769 | donors | count of active reliable donors within the center band and right of zero | reliable donors within the center band on the right of zero | 1980 |   | 20,254 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_right_in_2024 | 13,149 | donors | count of active reliable donors within the center band and right of zero | reliable donors within the center band on the right of zero | 2024 |   | 616,644 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_seat_2020 | 469 | winners | count of general-election winners with a dynamic CFscore | seated winners among House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 2020 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_seat_2022 | 469 | winners | count of general-election winners with a dynamic CFscore | seated winners among House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 2022 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_seat_near_2020 | 7 | winners | count of general-election winners with a CFscore within the center band | seated winners among House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 2020 |   | 469 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| n_seat_near_2022 | 13 | winners | count of general-election winners with a CFscore within the center band | seated winners among House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 2022 |   | 469 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| near_growth | 8 | ratio of the 2024 count to the 1980 count | count of near-center donors in 2024 divided by the count in 1980 | reliable donors within the center band | 1980 and 2024 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| next_near_2002 | $118 million | real 2024 dollars | second-largest total of a single near-center donor in the cycle, no cap | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2002 |   | 1 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| outer | 0.75 | CFscore units, distance from zero | distance from zero beyond which a donor counts as far left or far right | outer limit of the interior of the scale | election cycles 1980-2024 |   |   | none (constant) | DIME |   |
| peak_left_2024 | 72.1% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors with a CFscore between -1.3 and -0.7 (0.1-wide bins) | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| peak_left_hi | −0.7 | CFscore units | upper edge of the range around the left peak | ranges used to describe the two peaks of the 2024 distribution | 2024 |   |   | none (constant) | DIME |   |
| peak_left_lo | −1.3 | CFscore units | lower edge of the range around the left peak | ranges used to describe the two peaks of the 2024 distribution | 2024 |   |   | none (constant) | DIME |   |
| peak_right_2024 | 18.4% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors with a CFscore between 1.3 and 1.7 (0.1-wide bins) | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| peak_right_hi | 1.7 | CFscore units | upper edge of the range around the right peak | ranges used to describe the two peaks of the 2024 distribution | 2024 |   |   | none (constant) | DIME |   |
| peak_right_lo | 1.3 | CFscore units | lower edge of the range around the right peak | ranges used to describe the two peaks of the 2024 distribution | 2024 |   |   | none (constant) | DIME |   |
| pool_1980s_2024 | 0.9% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors whose first itemized gift was from 1980 to 1988 | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| pool_growth | 81 | ratio of the 2024 pool to the 1980 pool | count of active reliable donors in 2024 divided by the count in 1980 | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 and 2024 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| pool_since_2010_2024 | 72.2% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors whose first itemized gift was in 2010 or later | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| r16_1980 | 11.2% | percent of active donors in the group | share of active donors within the center band | donors with a score and 16 or more distinct recipients | 1980 |   | 22,747 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| r16_2024 | 1.3% | percent of active donors in the group | share of active donors within the center band | donors with a score and 16 or more distinct recipients | 2024 |   | 1,443,230 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| r2_1980 | 13.4% | percent of active donors in the group | share of active donors within the center band | donors with a score and 2 or more distinct recipients | 1980 |   | 57,193 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| rec_high | 16 | distinct recipients | minimum number of distinct recipients in the strict check | strictest recipient filter checked | career |   |   | none (constant) | DIME |   |
| rec_low | 2 | distinct recipients | minimum number of distinct recipients in the loose check | loosest recipient filter checked | career |   |   | none (constant) | DIME |   |
| rel_frac_1980 | 20.1% | percent of active donors | share of active donors who are reliable | all individual donors with a score and an itemized gift in the cycle | 1980 |   | 154,785 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| rel_frac_2024 | 36.0% | percent of active donors | share of active donors who are reliable | all individual donors with a score and an itemized gift in the cycle | 2024 |   | 7,043,771 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| rep_med_1980 | +0.97 | CFscore units | median CFscore of the party's candidates | Republican candidates: House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 1980 |   | 586 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| rep_med_2024 | +1.35 | CFscore units | median CFscore of the party's candidates | Republican candidates: House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 2024 |   | 1,163 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| repeat_2008 | 7.5% | percent of active repeat donors | share of repeat donors within the center band | reliable donors active in the cycle and in an earlier cycle | 2008 |   | 1,059,925 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| repeat_2024 | 1.19% | percent of active repeat donors | share of repeat donors within the center band | reliable donors active in the cycle and in an earlier cycle | 2024 |   | 2,468,143 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| right_in_1980 | 8.7% | percent of active reliable donors right of zero | share of donors right of zero who are within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 |   | 20,254 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| right_in_2024 | 2.1% | percent of active reliable donors right of zero | share of donors right of zero who are within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 616,644 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| seated_1980 | 16.2% | percent of winners | share of general-election winners with a CFscore within the center band | seated winners among House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 1980 |   | 451 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| seated_2020 | 1.5% | percent of winners | share of general-election winners with a CFscore within the center band | seated winners among House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 2020 |   | 469 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| seated_2022 | 2.8% | percent of winners | share of general-election winners with a CFscore within the center band | seated winners among House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore | 2022 |   | 469 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| share_1980 | 11.8% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1980 |   | 31,138 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| share_1986 | 13.0% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 1986 |   | 45,211 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| share_2002 | 9.6% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2002 |   | 794,413 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| share_2004 | 7.7% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2004 |   | 1,033,327 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| share_2006 | 7.8% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2006 |   | 1,142,451 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| share_2008 | 6.2% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2008 |   | 1,425,885 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| share_2016 | 3.4% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2016 |   | 1,978,112 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| share_2020 | 1.5% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2020 |   | 3,483,649 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| share_2024 | 1.2% | percent of active reliable donors | share of active reliable donors with a CFscore within the center band | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 2,533,588 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| top_near_2002 | 55% | percent of near-center dollars | share of the near-center dollars in one record, the single largest near-center donor total | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2002 |   | 76,075 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| top_near_2024 | 49% | percent of near-center dollars | share of the near-center dollars in one record, the single largest near-center donor total | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2024 |   | 29,446 | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |
| top_ratio_2002 | 8.6 | ratio of the largest to the second-largest near-center total | largest single near-center donor total divided by the second-largest | reliable individual donors active in the cycle | 2002 |   |   | none (administrative records: every itemized donor and every scored candidate is counted) | DIME |   |

## Definitions

- CFscore: A left-right position estimated from whom a donor gives to, or from who gives to a candidate. Negative values are left and positive values are right, and a donor keeps one score across all their giving.
- Percentage point: The unit for the difference between two percentages. A change from one share to another is stated in points, not in percent, so that absolute and relative change are not confused.
- DW-NOMINATE: A left-right score for each member of Congress estimated from roll-call votes. Members who vote alike receive similar scores, and the first dimension mostly separates the parties.
- Survey weights: Numbers that scale each respondent so the sample matches the population on known traits such as age, race, education and region. A weighted average counts a respondent with a large weight for more than one with a small weight.
- Confidence interval: A range around an estimate that would contain the true value in 95% of repeated samples if the sampling model held. The book reports 95% intervals unless it says otherwise.
- Effective sample size: The number of equally weighted respondents that would give the same precision as the weighted sample. It is smaller than the raw count when the weights vary a lot, and it sets how wide the confidence interval is.

## Methods

Sample: individual donors (not committees) in the Stanford DIME public version 4.0 with an itemized contribution in at least one of the 23 election cycles from 1980 to 2024 (gifts to federal and to state recipients, which the release puts on one scale), and House and Senate candidates of the two major parties with a dynamic CFscore (federal candidates only; 39,532 candidate records after keeping one record per candidate and cycle, the one with the larger receipts). The candidates with a score are 86% to 98% of the major-party House and Senate candidates in the file, by cycle, and 63% to 92% of those with under $10,000 in receipts; candidates without a score are not in any candidate figure. A reliable donor has given to at least 8 distinct recipients over the whole career and has a score estimated from the donor's own giving, not projected from a recipient's score: 31,138 donors active in 1980 and 2,533,588 in 2024. Every donor counts once in each cycle in which they gave. Estimands: the share of active reliable donors within 0.25 of zero on the CFscore scale (the center), and the share of their itemized dollars within that band (real 2024 dollars, deflated with CPI-U annual averages, each donor's total in a cycle capped at $1 million). A donor's CFscore is one number for the whole career, so a change in a share over time is a change in who is active. The entry and exit decomposition splits each cycle-to-cycle change into donors active in both cycles (fixed scores), donors who left and donors who joined, and averages the two orders of removal and addition; the steps sum exactly to the change from 1980 to 2024. Candidate scores are the dynamic (period-specific) CFscore; seated winners are coded through 2022; roll-call scores are DW-NOMINATE first-dimension scores in the DIME candidate file. Sensitivity: center bands of 0.10, 0.15, 0.25, 0.35 and 0.50; recipient filters of none, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 16 or more distinct recipients; dollar caps of none, $10 million, $1 million and $100,000. Weights: none for DIME (administrative records; every itemized donor and every scored candidate in the release is counted). The Cooperative Election Study share of respondents who place themselves in the middle category of the five-point ideology scale uses the single-wave weight, even election years 2006 to 2024. Intervals: DIME shares are full counts of the records in the release and carry no sampling interval, and they do not carry the estimation error of the CFscores. The CES share has a 95% normal interval on the Kish effective sample size, which is model based and ignores clustering; the 2006 to 2024 difference combines the two standard errors in quadrature. In the comparison figure each series and each survey interval end is divided by the series' own 2006 estimate and multiplied by 100. The pool by period of first gift groups each cycle's active reliable donors by the decade of their first itemized cycle (1980 to 1988, 1990 to 1998, 2000 to 2008, 2010 to 2018, 2020 to 2024). The party-median figure adds the 25th to 75th percentile range of the CFscores of seated members who have a roll-call score. Suppression: a share of donors needs at least 100 donors in its denominator (the smallest plotted group has 8,088 donors, 451 candidates or seated winners and 176 seated members of one party); CES cells need at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100. Coverage: winners and primary results are not coded for 2024; unitemized contributions are not in the file; the donor file has no link to recipients. The codebook is dated December 29, 2024 and states coverage of federal elections through the 2024 cycle; it does not say how complete the filings of that cycle are, so the 2024 pool may be incomplete.

## What these data cannot show

- The figures describe who gave in each cycle.
- They say nothing about whether any donor's views changed, because DIME fixes each donor's score, and every change over time here is a change in the roster of donors.
- The reliable flag is set once from a donor's whole record, and so is the score, which is estimated from giving after the cycle in which the donor is counted as well as before it.
- A donor who gave in 1980 and reached 8 recipients years later counts as reliable in 1980, while a donor who joined recently has had less time to reach that number, so the early and late pools are selected by different rules.
- The checks with other recipient filters show that the direction survives, and they do not remove the difference in career length.
- DIME starts in 1980, so donors first seen in 1980 include people who gave before it.
- Only itemized gifts are in the file.
- Gifts below the itemization threshold are absent, and changes in what gets itemized can change who appears in the pool.
- The codebook is dated late December 2024 and states coverage through the 2024 cycle without saying how complete the filings of that cycle are, so the 2024 pool may be incomplete.
- The files hold no recipients, so nothing here says whether a donor gave to one party, to both or to candidates near the middle, and nothing says how much of the entry after 2002 came through online platforms.
- A CFscore is an estimate, and the shares carry no allowance for its error.
- Zero is a point on an estimated scale and not a measured middle of public opinion, so near the center means near zero and does not mean moderate in the sense of a survey answer.
- Counts of the donors in the release are full counts and carry no sampling interval.
- Candidate scores rest on the same records as donor scores, so only the roll-call check and the survey comparison bring in other sources, and the roll-call check agrees with the CFscores on the size of the party gap and not on which party moved further.
- The donor lines cover gifts to federal and state recipients and the candidate lines cover federal candidates only.
- Winners are not coded for 2024, and primary results are coded for only part of the candidates in some cycles, so the chapter does not follow candidates through the primary stage.
- The data are descriptive.
- They cannot say whether donors' positions shape which candidates run, whether candidates' positions attract donors, or whether both follow something else, such as the sorting of voters by party.
- Neither donors nor candidates are a sample of voters.

## References

1. Bonica, Adam (2024). Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections: Public version 4.0 [Computer file]. Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, CA. http://data.stanford.edu/dime
2. Bonica, Adam (2014). Mapping the Ideological Marketplace. American Journal of Political Science 58(2): 367-386. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12062
3. United States Congress (2002). Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Public Law 107-155, 116 Stat. 81. https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ155/PLAW-107publ155.pdf
4. Hall, Andrew B. (2019). Who Wants to Run? How the Devaluing of Political Office Drives Polarization. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo35612049.html
5. Bonica, Adam (2018). Inferring Roll-Call Scores from Campaign Contributions Using Supervised Machine Learning. American Journal of Political Science 62(4): 830-848. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12376
6. Bafumi, Joseph; Herron, Michael C. (2010). Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress. American Political Science Review 104(3): 519-542.
7. Kish, Leslie (1965). Survey Sampling. John Wiley and Sons.

## Provenance

- Pipeline version: 1.0.0
- Build script: book3/chapters/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/build.py (sha256 87e9bb46caa01ae7a384e7d742ddc7fd96c995411de6cab590beecf857aaeb3b)
- Built on: 2026-09-30
- Site commit: 16414b2c7257546a7042d0b1734657f208999f60

Inputs:

| File | Size (bytes) | SHA-256, first 1 MB | SHA-256, last 1 MB |
| --- | ---: | --- | --- |
| data/cces/cces_clean.parquet | 53,454,868 | 9430e88b3196c9ca2250bdda1908d3920e80e276ca0c529c514e2fc2bdd00806 | f61097c727c38fd8d7c8e53fe86935fb626f351a64d99ccb1ae0b56715b2c405 |
| data/dime/proj/candidates_federal.parquet | 3,266,671 | b090e996702e68cb7a7c4945f38a1d6f2a83d6bd872b9cc5d028b9f4d87f26ef | 232b07e4ced5b8437f9c086a32b94d6b036af827482e834afdf5cf8c4a8108ce |
| data/dime/proj/donor_cycle_long.parquet | 346,381,580 | a16da7d5de4235c1366a70994d46b3a75effb0819ae13ca3e46e48fb614250a7 | c98fafa419c773775be32aa39d43e6ffe4ba577fabd74ef067905fd51077c836 |
| data/dime/proj/donor_ideology.parquet | 174,315,367 | 5b01a083643fc9586e2f368a71036a7a3d7b60eb07f7b7902626aaaf118b3f8d | ccc98e2c7b02e4fe245f3c34c452337f1c1dc2efca2a972b22c998bf5fc4c35e |

Outputs:

| File | SHA-256 |
| --- | --- |
| facts.json | d24e1a931055961f6599c5d6095447f98b547b504c4698f1d0dad9822506aaca |
| figures/candidate_center.json | a309407bf20c605ef853f02bf835830a825bbaa5d2c17a73355b318f261d1c27 |
| figures/candidate_medians.json | 15fcd4010162a53a7cf1c4e094c7dd790fd75f456d23115887f6b60511550efb |
| figures/center_sensitivity.json | 646a67f1ffd8f153dde53f5ca0d444d3eeef67057dc319b9cc4b02f8d6a77f60 |
| figures/center_share.json | a894d862b3ee25e0ffbbd96d3ad059ee69bc8e4d6928423e2093b1da6425bbe7 |
| figures/cohort_center.json | d838856cf9748fd4edc9185a6993c372c7ff1140c8c5693226911c24ed05da73 |
| figures/donor_distribution.json | 798894f7ac3d95326c2133328e066ef77c341d648518e86e5d552ef0e7b9af67 |
| figures/entry_exit.json | 590748b7e2fac44ad5f6787e19cfd825464b862a862275e57e8daf67a9a4e0c6 |
| figures/moderates_comparison.json | 18a39b5f1b47bd27b88d798c68b0a1ea7fb49ab405ac827f851d39aa28905907 |
| meta.json | 7e1b481c12ad24c1914ff749982763d2011c0627a5233735064db297c447cc75 |
| refs.json | b1c1db7eed516e07172bf1d103c3ff4492d319d27425ff595fb9bc0d13d8da88 |

## Machine formats

- Report (HTML): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/report
- Report (Markdown): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/report.md
- Every estimate (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/facts.json
- Table 1, figure "donor_distribution" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/figures/donor_distribution.json
- Table 2, figure "center_share" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/figures/center_share.json
- Table 3, figure "entry_exit" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/figures/entry_exit.json
- Table 4, figure "cohort_center" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/figures/cohort_center.json
- Table 5, figure "center_sensitivity" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/figures/center_sensitivity.json
- Table 6, figure "candidate_center" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/figures/candidate_center.json
- Table 7, figure "candidate_medians" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/figures/candidate_medians.json
- Table 8, figure "moderates_comparison" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-ideology-of-the-donor-pool/figures/moderates_comparison.json
- Index of every report: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/llms.txt; all reports in one file: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/llms-full.txt