Tech Workers Like Sanders and Warren, But Their Bosses Like Biden

Campaign donations expose the Silicon Valley class divide.

Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren at the Democratic Presidential Debate in Detroit in July 2019.Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Of all the Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren have been the harshest critics of big tech. Both have promised to break up Amazon, Apple, and Alphabet (Google’s parent company), which they say are monopolies. Sanders successfully pressured Amazon into increasing minimum wage for its employees to $15, and Warren’s proposed “wealth tax” would undoubtedly make a big dent in dot-com CEOs’ assets.

Yet Sanders’ and Warren’s skepticism toward Silicon Valley isn’t entirely mutual. The two have raised more money from the employees of 20 major tech companies than any other candidates, though tech execs were more enthusiastic about seeding Pete Buttigieg’s failed startup campaign.

Overall, 96 percent of tech employees’ $2 million in donations went to Democrats, though President Trump brought in more than Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer, who have since dropped out of the race. Google employees gave just under $700,000 to Democratic candidates, with more than half  going to Sanders and Warren. 

Who’s getting tech workers’ money 

To get a sense of how the presidential race is playing out in Silicon Valley and other tech hubs, we analyzed more than 20,000 Federal Election Commission records of contributions to presidential candidates by the employees of 20 well-known technology companies including Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Salesforce, Amazon, and Netflix (and their major subsidiaries). The data only includes gifts made in 2019, so no contributions to Michael Bloomberg were counted. 

A deeper look at the numbers shows that the candidates’ support splits among different levels of of workers. Warehouse workers, shoppers, technicians, administrative assistants, rideshare drivers, and support staff from Amazon, Uber, Lyft and other tech companies overwhelmingly backed Sanders, followed by Trump. More than 50 gig workers who identified themselves as drivers for Uber, Lyft, Amazon, and Instacart gave to Sanders. Tesla assembly line workers, PayPal customer support representatives, and Intel manufacturing technicians overwhelmingly gave to Sanders. (We counted gig workers even though some companies do not treat them as employees. To avoid double counting, gig workers who listed two employers were not included.)

Gig workers feel the Bern

This trend flipped when we looked at tech executives, directors, vice presidents, and other members of the C-suite. They overwhelmingly gave to Pete Buttigieg and former Vice President Joe Biden, more moderate candidates who haven’t taken positions that threaten tech companies. Among Buttigieg’s contributors were Pinterest’s CEO and chief operating officer, Lyft’s chief technology officer and chief strategy officer, Microsoft’s chief technology officer, and Google, Apple and Saleforce’s chiefs of staff. Biden’s supporters included vice presidents and senior vice presidents at Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Apple.

Mayor Pete could compete—in the C-Suite

A majority of the tech workers who have made contributions to presidential candidates are managerial and mid-level employees such as engineers, managers, and analysts. They mostly gave to Sanders and Warren, who together got three-quarters of the contributions from these employees. The gap between Sanders and Warren among this group was quite narrow, suggesting no clear front runner. 

Mid-level tech workers split for Sanders and Warren 

Looking at each of the remaining candidates’ contributions from different types of tech workers shows how Sanders and Warren are winning Silicon Valley’s money—but Biden is doing well in the boardroom. 

How the remaining candidates stack up

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate