The Donor Went Down to Georgia: Out-of-District Donations and Rivalrous Representation

Most of the money spent in U.S. congressional campaigns comes from donors residing outside the race’s electoral district. Scholars argue that legislators accepting out-of-district donations become “surrogate representatives” for outside donors. Yet researchers have neglected a critical question: How do geographic constituents react when their representatives accept money from outside donors? We argue that geographic constituents feel forced to share their representatives with out-of-district donors at the expense of their own representation. In an experiment during the 2021 U.S. Senate runoff elections in Georgia, we found that Georgians who learned about out-of-district donations to particular candidates expected their senator to spend significantly less time and effort working for the interest of Georgians. A follow-up experiment during the 2022 U.S. Senate elections identified local identity as a moderating variable. Relative to those receiving no prime, respondents whose local identity was primed and who learned about out-of-district donations expected their senator to spend less time and effort working for geographic constituents. Our findings highlight the rivalrous nature of representation and the trade-offs accompanying out-of-district donations and surrogate representation.