One of the biggest challenges identified by fundraisers is stylistic. | Julia Haslanger | POLITICO Staff Money gap: Why don't women give?

For all the progress women have made in Congress and in elections, they are practically sitting out the new game that is redefining American politics: big money.

It’s not that women want to leave it to men like Sheldon Adelson and Tom Steyer to sidle up to the table to shape important races and party politics. Rather, many fundraisers are learning that successfully collecting cash from women takes a different approach than doing so from men. In interviews, more than a dozen fundraisers, donors and political consultants said that when they reach out to women they bump up against deep cultural, strategic and logistical challenges that contrast markedly with how money has always been extracted from men.


Among them:

Wooing women takes more of a personal touch. They want more of a relationship with the candidate and a better understanding of where their donations are going.

( Also on POLITICO: Tom Steyer struggles to find big-money donors)

Many women are motivated by solicitations about “women’s issues’’ like abortion or breast cancer research, but often women are turned off by not hearing about other issues, like the economy or health care.

Women expect to attend the same events as their male counterparts, not teas or “women’s events.”

Yet even as they identify more effective ways to woo female donors, fundraisers have a long way to go. Many believe that as top male donors pull further and further away, the next few years will become a critical period in the fight to close the gender and money gap.

The top 20 male donors gave a combined $62.6 million, so far this cycle. That’s nearly six times the $11.2 million that top female donors contributed over the same time period, according to a Center for Responsive Politics review of contributions made through July 10 to federal candidates and committees that disclose their donors.

Both parties see the long-standing trend getting worse. And they are investing in efforts to get women to open their wallets for the obvious reason — get new donors to write big checks so even more money fills political war chests.

“I’m trying to change the numbers,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). “I purposely take time to reach out to women, speak directly with them on priorities, to engage them and get women to understand that decisions are made in Washington every day and if they aren’t a part of it they may not like the results.”

( QUIZ: Do you know Kirsten Gillibrand?)

One of the biggest challenges identified by fundraisers and other observers is stylistic. The strategies long used to get men to write political checks aren’t as effective at inducing wealthy women to give, too.

Wooing female donors takes a more personal touch: Often they want more of a relationship with candidates or outside groups and to have a clear understanding of where their money is going, according to several fundraisers and donors.

“Women often appreciate a relationship. They appreciate knowing where their money is going, where it is going to be used, so they can feel good about their investment,” Gillibrand said.

Gillibrand said she believes men dominate the political money scene because they continue to be more involved in politics across the board than women. While there are more female elected officials than ever before, men make up nearly 82 percent of members of Congress, for example. She’s trying to change the equation with her Off the Sidelines political action committee and a commitment to reach out to more women. Gillibrand’s PAC has raised $3.6 million so far this cycle and has doled out more than $400,000 to nearly 50 female House and Senate candidates.

As a fundraiser for Annie’s List in Texas, Amber Mostyn said she knows it takes more work for women to open their checkbooks.

( Also on POLITICO: Tech mogul ramps up GOP giving)

“The trust factor is really important. We try to put our candidates in front of them as much possible. Political giving — especially large donations — is a newer endeavor for women, so they need a greater level of trust than men. “

Republicans have also worked to engage women in a more holistic fashion.

Fundraisers say it’s important not to talk to women just about so-called women’s issues when seeking contributions. While some donors are motivated by causes like abortion or federal funding for breast cancer research, many also want to hear about the economy, health care and other issues.

Republican fundraiser Lisa Spies, who was the director for Women for Romney Victory, said the group’s success — it blew past its $10 million goal, raising $23 million — was in large part because it engaged high-level female donors across the board. Members of the national committee, who were required to raise or contribute $100,000, were briefed by the most senior Romney campaign aides, were asked to attend several donor meetings in Boston and to travel to retreats in places like Utah.

“We gave the women the same access, if not more,” Spies said, noting that women were able to interact with top aides like pollster Neil Newhouse. “You weren’t just being talked to, you were being a part of the conservation.”

Another major hurdle: time. Moving up the political food chain means not only cutting checks but fundraising and bundling political contributions for candidates.

Persuading women to devote a significant amount of their free time is a challenge, considering that they might already be busy with family, work and other obligations. Certainly men face the time crunch, but sources noted women mention the problem more often.

“You can’t turn it over to professional fundraisers if you really want to be successful,” said veteran Republican operative Bobbie Kilberg, who has increasingly helped raise money for presidential candidates. “You have to decide you are going to take the time and energy and make the personal appeals and make the personal calls.”

Kilberg, head of the Northern Virginia Technology Council, said she and her husband raised $4.1 million for Mitt Romney in 2012. This cycle, she has hosted events for politicians like Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez. In addition to blasting out emails for the fundraisers, Kilberg said she sends 700 to 800 personal follow-up emails for events.

“I spend a lot of time on it, and therefore I’m very selective,” Kilberg said of hosting events and raising money. “I don’t ride horses and I don’t play golf. I have two hobbies: One is my grandkids, the second is political fundraising for people I believe in.”

Heather Podesta, a major Democratic donor and founder of one of the top Washington lobbying firms Heather Podesta + Partners, said that she’s been able to grow as a fundraiser as part of her political and professional life. Podesta wrote her first political check to Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in 2002. Since then, she’s written checks to dozens of politicians and started asking her network in 2004 to contribute to then-Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, for whom she raised $100,000.

Podesta has only increased her giving and fundraising. She has doled out more than $60,000 to candidates for federal office, sitting lawmakers and other committees in the 2014 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. She is also one of the few women who contribute to super PACs, cutting $25,000 to the Senate Majority PAC and $10,000 to House Majority PAC in checks over the same time period.

“It’s been something that I’ve been able to braid into my life, and it’s a way where I can be helpful to candidates and the causes that I support,” Podesta said.

The rarefied circle of elite donors is still male-dominated.

The circle of top women givers on both sides of the aisle is small and many have known one another for years.

“It is absolutely male-dominated, and you very quickly get to know the key women donors nationally,” Podesta said. “There are certain women in New York and Boston who you just know you will see over and over again. They not only write big checks, but they also bring other people to the table.”

Democratic megadonor Barbara Lee is doing everything in her power to bring in more women. The founder of the Barbara Lee Political Office and the Barbara Lee Family Foundation has worked to elect women to public office since 1998.

“The donors circles are very much an old boys’ club,” said Lee, who has helped elect 122 women in 30 states, including every sitting Democratic female senator and governor. “There are very few women who are able to write the big checks, and even fewer who invest specifically in women candidates. That’s why I’m doing everything I can to create a new girls’ network.”

Laura Ricketts, who is one of the top female donors so far this cycle, said she has tried to get women to give for the past decade-plus with little success. Ricketts is co-owner of the Chicago Cubs and has supported Democratic candidates and causes. Her father, Joe Ricketts, founded the conservative outside group Ending Spending, and her brother Todd Ricketts serves as the group’s chairman.

“I have some suspicions,” Ricketts said of the lack of female megadonors. “In general, many women don’t make as much money as men, and then the money they do have, they spend it differently. Most women don’t think they’ll have an impact, and they think of political engagement differently than men.”

She added: “We’ve made some strides in getting women to show up at polls, but we still need to figure out how to get them to give because we have less of a say in who governs us. It’s a field we have to play in, otherwise, we forfeit without even playing the game.”

The gender gap is even wider on the Republican side. Only five of the top 20 female donors gave to the GOP.

Research shows that women make the majority of the financial decisions in the household and give more to philanthropic causes, but when it comes to political giving, they are not making the connection between the issues that they care about and the individuals who are serving in public office, according to Erin Loos Cutraro, executive director of She Should Run.

“It is a bigger investment, and I think that at times it can be short-sighted to make what feels like just the easier path to bringing in the dollars when in fact there is that giving capacity,” Loos Cutraro said.

There are signs that change is afoot. More than half of the top 20 women have already given more than, or are on track to exceed, their total contributions during the 2012 election, when only 11 women made it onto the list of top 100 overall donors.

In part, more women are giving because the face of business is slowly beginning to change. Men still dominate boardrooms — about 95 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are men — but as women rise up the ranks, their need to be politically active will increase, according to fundraisers and donors.

Susan Neely, president and CEO of the American Beverage Association, has been active in politics since 1986. But in the 2012 cycle, she increased her own political giving and also helped bundle money for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

She said her increased participation comes with the role of being executive of a trade association.

“You are not considered effective, I don’t think, unless you are participating in the whole gamut of things we do to advance our point of view,” said Neely. “As you get more women in the top jobs, you are going to see more engagement.”

Republicans in particular have begun an intensive push to recruit female donors with a number of new fundraising groups focused on getting women to open their checkbooks. GOP megadonor Christine Toretti launched the super PAC Women Lead a year ago focused on getting women to write checks and help elect more women.

The group has raised about $180,000 so far this cycle and has done polling and online advertising on behalf of Charlotte Lane, who lost the GOP primary in West Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District to Alex Mooney, and for Joni Ernst, the GOP Senate nominee in Iowa.

Toretti acknowledged she has struggled to get female donors on board.

“Originally, what I had hoped to do was get women to support women, but we’re still not writing the checks the way the guys are, so if you want to raise the money, you’ve got to go where the people are willing to write the checks,” Toretti said.

New York financier Paul Singer is also putting the weight of his political organization to raise money for female lawmakers with a new venture, Winning Women. In late March, the group put together a fundraiser for Republican congressional candidates Barbara Comstock, Martha McSally and Elise Stefanik that raised more than $250,000. Co-hosts of the event were a who’s who of Republican female power players, including Linda McMahon, Angela Meyers and Nina Rosenwald. Singer’s group has a September fundraising event in New York City locked in, and events in seven other cities — including Los Angeles, Dallas and Atlanta — are still in development. Annie Dickerson, who works for Singer, is playing a leadership role in these events.

And Democrats are looking to capitalize on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s potential run for the White House as a motivator for female donors. While super PACs have historically raised only one-fifth of their resources from women, the majority of money raised by Ready for Hillary comes from women. The group has already gotten significant influx from big-name female donors like Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of the late Apple founder.

EMILY’s List, long one of the original motivators for female Democratic donors, also gets the majority of its major donors from women. About 72 percent of the group’s contributors who donate more than six figures are women. The group had its best quarter this cycle, raising more than $9.2 million in the second quarter through its PAC, independent expenditures and money bundled for candidates through EMILY’s List members.

“What we’ve seen at Emily’s List is that a donor who comes in at $100 today, very possibly could be that six-figure donor in 20 years,” said Stephanie Schriock, head of EMILY’s List.