We Do Need More Moms in Politics. JD Vance Won’t Get Us There

‘Lawmakers need to focus on the big barrier to moms of young kids running for office: childcare,’ writes Kara Alaimo.

Republican Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance’s past comment that Vice President Kamala Harris and other Democratic leaders are “a bunch of childless cat ladies miserable at their own lives” is the line that keeps on living. Never mind that Vance’s comments are false. Harris is a mom: her two stepchildren recognize her as their parent, as does their biological mother.

Of course, having children shouldn’t be a pre-requisite for office—part of the job of a political leader is being able to understand the challenges of people who are different from them. But in fact, as a mom, I’m with Vance on wishing more moms would hold office. To make that happen, he and other lawmakers need to focus on the big barrier to moms of young kids running for office: childcare.

It’s unsurprising that Harris doesn’t have biological children. Being a mother is a huge impediment to winning political office, because in the U.S., moms are responsible for the majority of the childcare, and childcare is so expensive that they often can’t afford to pay for it personally while running a political campaign. That’s why so many of the women who have held the highest offices in our country don’t have kids—like Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court and cabinet secretaries such as Condoleezza Rice and Janet Napolitano. Just 6.8% of members of Congress and 5.3% of state legislators are moms to children under age 18, according to the Vote Mama Foundation.

Read More: America’s Moms Are Running on Empty. We Need to Do More to Support Them.

In 28 states, childcare costs more than in-state college tuition, according to a 2023 NetCredit study. And people running for or holding political office often work exceptionally long hours, so their childcare costs are likely higher than average. What’s more, politicians in 17 states can’t use campaign funds to pay for childcare while running for office, according to the Vote Mama Foundation. And politicians in 38 states and Washington, DC can’t use campaign funds for caregiving while they’re carrying out their official duties. That’s a huge problem because the vast majority of state legislatures don’t pay lawmakers enough to afford the cost of living in their states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Politicians should be allowed to use campaign funds to cover these costs because most moms otherwise won’t be able to afford childcare while earning little or no money as a political candidate or state legislator.

Lawmakers like Vance also need to help make childcare more affordable. One way they could do that is by restoring the billions in childcare funding provided by the American Rescue Plan Act which expired in September, resulting in immediate increases in childcare costs. Not to mention, it would also likely boost the economy. A new analysis from the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project shows labor force participation by women with children under age five has fallen since September, when this funding expired. Congress could also expand the child tax credit, which would put more money in parents’ pockets for childcare. But on August 1, Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan bill which would do this.

More broadly, we all need to rethink our stereotypes of working moms. A lot of people assume when women have kids, we become less invested in our careers. Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell famously gave voice to this assumption in 2008 when he was caught on a hot mic saying Janet Napolitano was perfect for role of Homeland Security Secretary because “Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote, literally, 19, 20 hours a day to” her work.

But Lauren Smith Brody, founder of The Fifth Trimester, a gender equity consultancy focused on caregivers at work, told me her research suggests the opposite: When women have children we’re often motivated to work more, both so we can afford the expenses that come with kids and because we’re worried about the world our kids are going to live in and want to try to fix it. (This was absolutely the case for me when I became a mom.)

Women who seek the hugely demanding job of political office also need more support from their partners. The latest Pew research confirms that, among opposite-sex couples, women still do the vast majority of the childcare and household work, even when we work full time. This needs to change. Employers can help make that possible by not expecting staffers to put in an excessive number of hours. Labor economist Claudia Goldin’s Nobel prize-winning research shows that when this happens it’s often the woman who allows her career to take a back seat so that her husband can overwork, since someone has to be around for the kids.

So, it looks like Vance got a couple things wrong: Harris is most certainly a mom, and childless people aren’t less qualified for office (by his flawed logic of believing politicians can’t comprehend the experiences of people who are different from them, only white, married, cisgender men, then, should vote for Donald Trump and Vance). Still, he’s right to point out that there aren’t many moms in top political office. But instead of isolating women even further with his comments, it would behoove Vance to start thinking about why.

Good thing that, as a member of Congress, he’s in a position to help fix the challenges women are up against by restoring childcare funding that could help moms pursue political office and other work. States need to allow parents to use campaign funds to pay for childcare while campaigning or working in government roles. Other parental figures like dads need to step up and do equal amounts of caregiving, which will only be truly possible when employers stop expecting overwork. And all of us need to rethink the way we view mothers and their motivations.

Moms of young kids are often hugely ambitious—but our country has set up the motherload of barriers to them running for office.