March 2003

Using the Past to Chart the Future

Over the course of its 18-year history, EMILY's List's original political strategy -- to create a fundraising network for pro-choice Democratic women candidates -- has expanded to encompass a full-service political organization that raises money for women candidates, helps them build strong campaigns, and mobilizes women voters on election day. Eighteen years ago, EMILY's List operated out of a 12' by 12' office with a volunteer president; today, a staff of more than 50 work in offices in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco.

Throughout this growth, EMILY's List has maintained a singular focus on its original mission: to elect pro-choice Democratic women to office.

"The world has changed dramatically for women in politics over the last nine elections," says Ellen R. Malcolm, president of EMILY's List. "In 1985, there were no Democratic women in the Senate, and the number in the House had declined to 12. EMILY's List has executed an evolving strategy to give women political power -- and now there are nine Democratic women in the Senate and 41 in the U.S. House. We have leveled the playing field for women candidates in ways that we never even dreamed."

But, Malcolm notes, women continue to face significant challenges in winning top offices, and their numbers are starting to slip at the lower levels. Furthermore, GOP control of government jeopardizes women's rights, including the right to choose.

To prepare for the next decade, EMILY's List is conducting a full-scale review and preparing a ten-year strategic plan.

The goal, Malcolm says, is to "identify the barriers still facing women candidates, evaluate our strategies to determine what does and doesn't work, and develop realistic goals for restoring progressive policies to our government over the next decade."

Identifying and eliminating barriers

The biggest obstacle women candidates faced in 1985 was credibility. Women had a hard time convincing the political establishment that they were up to the task.

"We believed the best way to establish credibility was to raise early money -- which is how we came up with our name," Malcolm says. "Early Money Is Like Yeast because it makes the dough rise."

Before EMILY's List started, women would literally hold bake sales or pass the hat to raise money -- "but that wasn't getting us anywhere," Malcolm says. "So we had a novel idea. We'd reach out to our progressive friends across the country, tell them who was running, and ask them to contribute to the candidates of their choice. That's how we developed the donor network."

The strategy proved immediately successful. In 1986, polls showed Barbara Mikulski, then a popular congresswoman from Baltimore, leading the primary field -- another congressman and the sitting governor -- for an open Senate seat. But Maryland's political establishment doubted her ability to win.

So Mikulski, with help from EMILY's List, raised enough early money to convince the political establishment that she knew how to convert her lead in the polls into victory on election day. Once she established herself as a credible contender, traditional political funders got behind her and helped her build a winning campaign. That year, Mikulski became the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate in her own right.

"Today women are considered serious candidates," Malcolm says. "They've won tough races -- and now when our viable candidates get in, we know they will be financially competitive. That is in large part due to candidate contributions from EMILY's List members -- more than 101,000 over the last cycle. The average gift of $91 shows that this is grassroots politics at its best."

The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval

EMILY's List has gained a reputation for being tough-minded in its support. In addition to requiring that prospective candidates be pro-choice Democratic women, EMILY's List recommends to members only viable candidates -- women who, given appropriate resources, have a realistic chance of winning.

The "viability" standard is yet another way to build credibility, Malcolm says. "We've become the political equivalent of the ‘Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.' It's understood that when EMILY's List recommends a candidate, she has reached a certain threshold in her campaign."

This standard also assures EMILY's List members that their contributions are going where they can make the most profound difference. "Like good political venture capitalists, we watch our campaigns closely and encourage members to continue investing in the candidates who are catching fire," says Malcolm.

The biggest barrier

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the biggest barrier to electing women is not gender -- it's the power of incumbency. In 2002, 96 percent of members of Congress seeking re-election won, leaving very few openings for newcomers.

"The power of incumbency informs every aspect of EMILY's List's political program," Malcolm says. "We put enormous energy into identifying open seats and recruiting pro-choice Democratic women to run in them."

Though women candidates can and have defeated vulnerable incumbents -- Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, for example -- it's a very difficult, expensive task. Open seats offer by far the most promising opportunities to elect women.

In 1989, to make sure women candidates could take advantage of open seat opportunities, EMILY's List expanded its operations to include a political department, guided by Rosa DeLauro, EMILY's List's first executive director. Under DeLauro, the political program instigated research designed to help women, including a survey on choice conducted after the Supreme Court decision in Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services (which opened the door for state legislatures to limit access to abortion services). The results of this study confirmed that being outspokenly pro-choice would help candidates win elections. (DeLauro left EMILY's List in 1990 to run for an open House seat in her home state of Connecticut, which she now represents in Congress.)

In 1993, noting the difficulty women candidates had hiring campaign staff, EMILY's List's political program added a training arm. Since then, over 1,000 people have graduated from EMILY's List's training seminars on fundraising, management, communications, and field strategy. Through this program, EMILY's List has built another network: one of political operatives dedicated to electing women, many of whom repeatedly work on pro-choice Democratic women's campaigns. EMILY's List has tapped alumni for its own political staff, as well.

"Our training program is an incubator for talent," says Malcolm. "These young people's names go into our job bank, and we turn to them again and again to help our candidates build strong campaigns."

In 2000, the number of women elected to state legislatures declined for the first time in 30 years, leading to yet another expansion. EMILY's List's State Legislative Program was designed to bring a new generation of women into politics. Two staffers work full-time to reach out to women candidates, Democratic legislative caucuses, and organizations dedicated to electing women at the state level.

"The success of this program is a promising harbinger for the future of women in politics," Malcolm says.

Mobilizing women voters

In the 1994 election, 16 million women who had voted in 1992 stayed home, leading to disastrous results for Democrats. The only bright spot was California, where EMILY's List collaborated with the state Democratic party to mobilize women voters. This effort helped re-elect Sen. Dianne Feinstein and boosted Democrats up and down the ticket.

Elsewhere, Malcolm recalls, "very little was being done to speak directly to women voters."

EMILY's List responded by taking the WOMEN VOTE! project national -- creating a long-term, multi-million-dollar strategy to learn about different groups of women voters, communicate with them about the value of voting, and help get them to the polls on election day.

"We believed that by emphasizing the issues that mattered to women and their families, we could show them the positive role government can play in their lives and why their votes mattered," Malcolm says.

Today, EMILY's List WOMEN VOTE! is a source of extensive research on women voters, including the Women's Monitor, a series of national surveys designed to identify important demographic groups of women and draw attention to the gender gap. WOMEN VOTE! has also conducted research on hotbutton issues like prescription drug coverage, family values, and the political climate after Sept. 11. This research helps shape EMILY's List's political program -- and because we regularly brief members of Congress and allies in the progressive community, it also benefits Democrats at large.

WOMEN VOTE! has also put women at the table when the Democratic coalition makes decisions about voter mobilization and targeting. "We are a powerful part of those decisions," says Malcolm, "which is good news for women candidates, women voters, and the issues we care about."

Over four cycles, EMILY's List WOMEN VOTE! has spent over $25 million to contact women voters nationwide and encourage them to vote. WOMEN VOTE! programs have helped elect and re-elect pro-choice Democratic women candidates to the House, Senate, and governor. WOMEN VOTE! boosts every Democrat on the ticket, including men, in election after election. In 2000, eight of nine new Democratic senators had WOMEN VOTE! projects in their states, including four pro-choice Democratic women.

Expanding EMILY's List's role in the political world

Through a carefully executed political strategy, EMILY's List has fundamentally changed the dynamic for women candidates. Having helped elect 55 women to the House, 11 to the Senate, and seven as governors, EMILY's List is meeting its mission of increasing the number of pro-choice Democratic women in office. Our recommendation and the fundraising power it confers gives women candidates instant credibility and the resources they need to win.

Campaign finance reform legislation passed by Congress last year has rearranged the fundraising terrain; political entities everywhere are learning how to operate in the new world. The effects on EMILY's List are minimal, as we are already the top fundraiser of federal, or "hard," money, aside from the party committees. But the situation is different, and far more difficult, for candidates. The new law doubled the amount individuals can contribute to candidates from $1,000 to $2,000 per election -- sharpening an already daunting advantage for Republicans, who have far more donors at that level. Pro-choice Democratic women have historically started out at a fundraising disadvantage; the new law increases the importance of EMILY's List members' support for them.

"One of our top priorities is to help our candidates be competitive in this new environment," Malcolm says. "But we can do more. That's why we are formulating our ten-year plan: to build a progressive powerhouse that can lead us into the next decade and beyond.

"EMILY's List can bring a new generation of women into politics through our state legislative program," Malcolm says. "EMILY's List can train young people to work on campaigns and elect progressive Democratic candidates up and down the ticket. And EMILY's List can loosen the stranglehold right-wing Republicans have on the Congress.

"It's been an exciting ride from bake sales to being the biggest funder of federal candidates and the nation's biggest political action committee," says Malcolm. "From seeing women candidates brushed aside as ‘not serious' to winning the most hard-fought races in the country; from looking at a Congress full of dark blue suits to one that reflects the vibrancy of dozens of new women members. Now it's time to start the next chapter of EMILY's List history."