Danielle Thomsen
  • January 22, 2026

  • New book by Danielle Thomsen, UC Irvine political science professor, explores how fundraising matters in American politics

    • -----

The Money SignalIn her new book, The Money Signal: How Fundraising Matters in American Politics (University of Chicago Press), UC Irvine political science professor Danielle Thomsen explores how, when and why money matters in American political campaigns. Drawing on more than four decades of data, she finds that fundraising success, particularly early in the cycle, translates into political advantages ranging from increased donor and media attention to better committee assignments and bill progress post-election. Below, she shares how this shift matters for the quality of competition, whose voices are heard in the electoral process, and why it should concern voters heading to the polls.

Q: What sparked your interest in exploring fundraising as a "signal" in American politics, and what core question were you hoping to answer through this book?

A: I first became interested in money when I noticed that candidates with state legislative backgrounds were dropping out before the primary. These are the most strategic and knowledgeable candidates who have a pretty good understanding of elections and politics before they enter a race. I looked at more than 2,000 dropout decisions across four decades and found that experienced candidates who struggled to raise money were most likely to drop out. Along the way, I’ve surveyed and interviewed many candidates who have said how important money is for attracting attention and generating momentum in campaigns, and I began to think scholars were missing something about why money is so valuable. Money does matter for what candidates can buy – staff, advertisements, and such – but it also matters for how they are perceived by a host of influential political actors, including other candidates, donors, journalists, and party leaders.

Q: Your book argues that fundraising serves not just as a resource but as a focal point for assessing candidate viability. What did your data reveal about how early fundraising shapes outcomes - both in campaigns and in governing?

A: Yes, the chapters demonstrate a variety of ways in which early money shapes the perceptions and behavior of key political actors. Competitors think candidates who raise money are more formidable, and those who struggle to raise money are more likely to drop out. Donors are more likely to support leading fundraisers later in the cycle, and journalists are more likely to cover their campaigns. Moreover, the benefits of fundraising extend into the legislative realm as well, particularly in places where party leaders have more control. Among those who are elected, better fundraisers receive better committee assignments and their bills advance further in the legislative process.

In short, candidates and officeholders who raise large sums of money are viewed as viable and worthy of attention, which results in a positive feedback loop where they are deemed more formidable to other candidates, more attractive to donors seeking to give their money efficaciously, more competitive to journalists who cover frontrunners, and more electable to party leaders who want to win majorities.

Q: You use an impressive mix of long-term data, interviews, and media analysis. What surprised you most in your findings - either something counterintuitive or a pattern you didn’t expect to emerge?

A: I’ve long thought that money matters in politics, but I was surprised by how bimodal early fundraising is: in most races, fundraising is either all or nothing. Most candidates raise either all of the money in their race or basically none at all. What is more, fundraising is even more imbalanced than vote totals, as around one-fourth of candidates raise no money but they still receive a small fraction of votes. The all or nothing nature of fundraising has important implications for the quality of competition and which voices are heard in the electoral process.

Q: How does your work help us better understand the broader decline in competitive congressional races - and what consequences might this "money signal" have for political representation and voter engagement?

A: The book helps us understand why early money is an increasingly salient metric in light of the decline in competitive general elections in November. Most districts are safe for one of the two parties, so the primary election is more and more important in the selection of lawmakers. But there isn’t a lot of other information available in the preprimary period. Money is publicly available, objective, and easily comparable across candidates. As the timeline of congressional elections moves earlier in the cycle, early money is seen as a valuable and telling piece of information for candidates, donors, journalists, and party elites. The consequence is that wealthier candidates and better fundraisers are more likely to be seen as viable and ultimately be elected to Congress.

Q: After writing The Money Signal, what do you hope readers – especially journalists, donors, or aspiring candidates – take away from this work? Are there actions or changes you hope it inspires?

A: I actually hope it could lead to a decline in the use of money as a signal. The huge emphasis on money is, I think, problematic for elections and representation. While campaign finance reform faces an uphill battle, the amount of money in elections has reached such unprecedented levels, and I am optimistic that change might be possible. Spending limits seem unlikely at the moment, but they would have a transformative effect on American elections.

 

Related News Items

Archive

Connect with us:

© UC Irvine School of Social Sciences – 3151 Social Sciences Plaza, Irvine, CA 92697-5100 – 949.824.2766