PLSC 323 FINAL EXAM 2

Rise of careerism

- Greater interest in what Congress does
- Higher stakes in what Congress does
- Better career opportunities for serving
- Creation of a Washington community attractive to members (AC)

Two Congresses

No matter how much members of Congress distinguish themselves as lawmakers, they also have to distinguish themselves in the eyes of local constituents

Electoral fortunes depend less on what Congress produces as a national institution than on the policy positions they take individually

Fenno's Paradox

Voters hate "Congress" but love their representative

MCs try to separate themselves from politicians back in DC - running for Congress by running against Congress

Trustee representation

Representatives do what they regard as the best interest of the voters independent of what the voters want.

Delegate representation

When representatives follow expressed wishes of the voters

Incumbency advantage

The electoral edge afforded to those already in office (not a pixie dust)

How do people decide for whom to vote?

1. Voters support candidates from their own party

2. Voters support incumbents

Party ID

A citizen's self-proclaimed preference for one party or the other
- It's enduring
- It accounts for ~90% of votes in pres elections
- It strongly affects voter turnout
- It appears to affect policy positions

Explaining incumbency advantage

1. Districting**
2. "Perks"**
3. Personal vote
4. Money**
5. Candidate quality*

Baker v Carr

One person, one vote - no more malapportionment

Gerrymandering

Process of redrawing legislative boundaries for the purpose of benefiting the party in power.

Packing

Concentrating partisan voters in a single district in order to maximize the number of representatives that can be elected by the opposition in other districts

Cracking

Spreading voters of one type over many districts where they will comprise minorities that are unable to influence elections

Perks of office

- Free stuff (staff, offices, mail)
- Celebrity privilege
- Free publicity -> greater knowledge of and affection for incumbents (but! people don't really know their representative)

Personal vote

The portion of a candidate's electoral support which originates in his or her personal qualities, qualifications, activities and record.
- load of bullshit

Jacobson's paradox

The more incumbents spend the worst they will do.
- They either think they have a difficult challenger or believe they are in danger of losing

Why don't good candidates run?

- It's hard (esp fundraising)
- Chances of winning
- The 'psych out' factor

"Money is the mother's milk of politics"

Campaign finance = $ buys things that campaigns use or need

Campaign finance legislation history

- Tillman Act (1907): banned corporate contributions to federal campaigns
- Federal Corrupt Practices Act (1925): established some contribution limits and disclosure
- Taft-Hartley (1947): banned corporate and union contributions and expenditures

All failed because of sporadic enforcement and no dedicated independent agency

The 1974 amendments to FECA

Post Watergate
- Limit $$$
- Contain the cost of campaigns
- Public funding for some campaigns
- Restrict outside groups
- FEC / Disclosure

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

1st Amendment protects campaign spending; legislatures can limit contributions, but not how much one spends of his own money on campaigns.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

- Allows corporations and unions to engage in express advocacy
- Overturns aspects of McCain-Feingold, 1974 Amendments to FECA, Taft-Hartley, and Tilden Act
(more than 100 years of law and presidents)

Unleashing the gazilionaires

What do campaigns do?

- Introduce / tear down candidates
- Raise issues (classic version of campaign offering voters policy choices v. reality of inattentive voters and self-interested candidates)
- Identify voters and try to insure that supporters show up on Election Day

Persuasion

seeks to convince undecided or weakly committed voters (swing voters)

Mobilization

ensuring that one's supporters vote (GOTV)

Value of $ in campaigns

Winners almost always outspend losers

Money is most valuable in hands of good candidate in reasonably hopeful situation

Why is campaign finance reform so difficult to achieve?

Legislators' interests and the inattentive public & complex issues

Likeliest to happen in the Courts

1994 elections in context

This is the first midterm election since 1946 in which the Republicans ended unified Democratic control of Congress in a midterm election under a Democratic president.

3 diff meanings of elections

Electoral consequences
- "Realignments"

Policy consequences
- New Deal, Great Society, Obamacare

Procedural/Organizational consequences
- '74 & '94 and the bipartisan creation of the contemporary Congress

Hallmarks of the contemporary congress ('94-)

- Party discipline on many/most roll call votes
- Powerful leaders and increased centralization
- Aggressive use of procedural tactics (House restrictive rules, Senate filibuster)
- Increased importance of intraparty conflict (primary threats)

Fenno characterizes the 104th Congress as a failure for Republicans. Do you agree or disagree? Would he have reached a different conclusion had he waited a few more years to write about the 104th?

Agree; probably not, because even in the 105th Congress, Republicans still struggled with the confrontational style and Gingrich's leadership.

Do you agree with Fenno's view that the lack of experience running the House had a large, generally negative effect on the Republican majority? In what ways was it felt?

Yes, because the influx of inexperienced freshmen led to overzealous behavior, poor party cohesion, and mismanagement of key issues like the budget standoff.

Which was a bigger problem for Republicans in 1995 - their lack experience interpreting victories or their lack of experience governing?

Their lack of experience interpreting victories was the bigger issue, as it fostered a revolutionary mindset that undermined effective governance.

Could Republicans have won the budgetary standoff with President Clinton? How?

No, because while holding out might have seemed viable, they underestimated Clinton's veto power and failed to present a compelling narrative to the public.

Are there any similarities between today's new Democratic House majority and the new Republican majority that Fenno wrote about?

Yes, in the internal divide between ideological hardliners and moderates, mirroring the split between Contract with America freshmen and veteran Republicans.

Are there any lessons that today's parties should take from the 104th Congress?

Yes, parties should learn that bold promises without strategic compromise and realistic governance lead to political backlash and legislative failure.

Big-I institutions

organizations which create, enforce, andapply laws; that mediate conflict; make governmental policy affecting the economy and society; and otherwise provide representation for the people. (Congress, Presidency, agencies, etc.)

Small-i institutions

established and prevalent rules, structures and (sometimes) norms/conventions that structure social and political interactions (decision rules - majority rule, supermajority)

The median voter theorem

Under simple majority rule with actors considering proposals on a single dimension of evaluation, the median voter represents a stable equilibrium outcome

No other proposal can beat a proposal located at the median voter's ideal point - it has an empty winset

Legislators love committees, why?

- Signals their priorities
- Claim credit for achievements
- Influence over the policymaking process

Why committees?

Institutional needs
- efficiency of smaller groups
- division of labor by issue (executive check?)

Individual needs (Mayhew)
- Signals priorities to constituents
- Greater influence over distributive goods
- Prestige, influence w/i chamber
- Personal policy interest

Partisan needs
- Tools of majority party? Negative power?

Standing v. select

Permanent committees can become powerful institutions over time, but temporary ones have no time to acquire power

Fixed membership + fixed jurisdiction = recipe for committee power

Seniority system

Seats are owned; longest tenured majority member on committee automatically becomes chair

Committee system biases

Geographical and ideological composition of standing committees foster misrepresentative policy outcomes

Fenno's three goals of lawmakers

Reelection, good public policy, influence in congress

Members with similar goals find themselves on the same committees -> bias (Mayhew: members like it this way)

Special/select committees

Temporary panels that go out of business after the two-year life of the Congress in which they were created

Joint committee

Includes members from both chambers for study, oversight, investigation, and routine activities

Conference committee

Reconcile differences between similar measures passed by both chambers

How committee assignments are made

New members request committees, somereturning members request transfers

Committees on committees (part of the party caucuses) review requests andpresent a plan

Plans are voted on by each party'scaucus/conference

Chamber votes on the combined plans

Jurisdiction

When overlapping, informal rules of who gets to consider a bill
- If too broad, bill will go to multiple committees
- Overlap can be a good thing - members develop expertise in multiple policy fields, prevent any one group from dominating a topic, promotes competition

Staff

- Drafts policy proposals
- Helps draft mark-ups and reports
- Helps organize hearings, recruits witnesses
- Negotiates with lobbyists, legislators, and executive officials
- Gathers information for analysis and policy options

Extreme disadvantage of House races - coverage

expectations of lower interest -> less coverage -> lower interest -> less coverage

self-fulfilling prophecy

How can we tell if a district is winnable or not? What factors might inform us? Why?

A district's winnability can be gauged by past election margins, partisanship, demographics, and whether the incumbent's actions have shifted voter sentiment.

How can we tell if a non-incumbent is viable or not?

A non-incumbent's viability often depends on their fundraising ability and visibility, as demonstrated by Obama's early success

Do any of the steps outlined in the NGPVAN webpage seem particularly useful or not? Do we know whether any of their advice is good or not?

The NGPVAN steps seem pretty basic and intuitive, so their usefulness is limited unless tailored more strategically.

Suppose - 10 years from now - you decided to run for Congress, what would you do?

If I ran for Congress, I'd raise money early, build a strong local network, and craft a message rooted in district-specific issues.

Krasno with Green & with Dowling argues that political parties are essentially lousy at politics. Do you agree or not? These pieces are both @20 years old. Is there any reason to expect they're still valid or not

Yes, I agree parties are often bad at politics, and these critiques still seem valid today given ongoing missteps in strategy and candidate support.

Follow up from #5: These papers both suggest that the parties would probably be better served not to target but to spread their money around. Would that be a good strategy in Housesim?

In Housesim, spreading money around may be smarter than targeting, especially to avoid over-investing in unwinnable races or missing emerging opportunities

Germaneness requirements

An amendment must address the same subject as the matter being amended

Restrictive rules (courtesy of Rules committee)

Restricts time, amendments allowed, order of amendments, decision rules, etc.

Negative power

to prevent something from happening (majority party's control of the floor)

Positive power

make something happen / influence what does happen

Implications of scarce time in congress

Most of what Congress does happens away from the Floor (adv to comms)

Roll calls are usually a foregone conclusion (they know what'll happen)

Coalitions v Parties

Coalitions are short-term alliances that occur around specific proposals

Parties are lasting and pervasive alliances

Why did parties form?

Reflected overarching philosophical orientations toward government (more than Hamilton v Jefferson)

Reflected patterns of behavior (used to dealing w same people)

Reflected demands of citizens to make sense of voting choices (moreso later)

Mayhew: parties aren't powerful

Why would members with the goal of reelection allow the existence of congressional parties that can force them to behave in any way that might threaten their electoral interests?

But: evidence pro for greater party unity and arm twisting by party leaders (committee assignments, primary challenges); comparatively weak, relative to the past: strong

When parties are more or less powerful, which institution loses?

Committees

Cartel Agenda Theory

Party power is about agenda setting

Members support their party because a good party reputation improves their electoral fortunes

Conditional Party Government Theory

Party power is seen as being in tension with individual members and (especially) standing committees as centers of power

When the party is in general agreement about policy, party leaders are empowered to 'twist arms'

Members are motivated by policy preferences (contra Mayhew)

Policy preferences can be independent of their representative relationship with constituents

Agenda setting

A screening process which serves the interests of the majority party

Substantive committees (and esp their chairs) engage in gatekeeping

The Rules Comm further screens bills that get placed on the calendar

Party Agendas

Winning and cohesion make everyone in the party look better (party reputation)

When possible, the majority party chooses votes on which its members can stick together (and on which the minority is forced to make tough decisions)

Arm twisting

Rewards and punishments; not just shaping the choice set, but changing a person's choices

When 'conditions' hold, conditional party government theory suggests that congressional parties possess this power

Ex: party loyalty for gaining and keeping a chairmanship post-94

Increased partisan polarization, why?

Socialization (fellow partisans tend to be in one's social circle)

Different sorts of people become members of Congress now (more committed partisans)

Outside forces (party/ideological activists)

Mayhew: Reelection as the Primary Motivation

While reelection motivates incumbents, challengers often run due to ideological passion, systemic frustration, or personal ambition.

Mayhew: Party Weakness in Congress

Although Mayhew saw weak parties, today's Congress shows stronger party control through leadership influence and growing polarization.

Mayhew: Local vs. National Conditions in Elections

Elections have become more nationalized over time (presidential approval, party ID), reducing the importance of local issues that Mayhew once emphasized.

Mayhew: Structural Features That Aid Reelection

Committees let them focus on district-relevant issues.

Casework helps individual constituents, building support.

Franking lets them send free mail to voters.

Media and fundraising access give incumbents a big edge over challengers.

Advertising

building name recognition and a good image

Credit claiming

taking credit for delivering benefits to the district

Position taking

making public statements on issues to appeal to voters

Particularized benefits

Specific favors or funding for a district to win support

Work v show horses

Doing the work of legislating and more generally keeping the institution functioning

or

Seeking fame and publicity

Politicans' motivations - roll call votes

Constituents (delegate)

Personal policy ideas (trustee)

Special interest influence (lobbying..)

Final passage votes

Roll call vote: bill (as amended on the floor) v. status quo policy

Amendment votes

Roll call vote: taking the bill as written (and as changed in committee) and allowing the whole membership to decide on further changes

Procedural votes

Roll call vote: determining the way in which floor business will be conducted

FDR and the modern presidency

Utilization of mass communication technology

Active participation in all aspects of the legislative process

Most massive overhaul of economic policy in history (w full congressional support)

"The Imperial Presidency"

(Limited) Formal Legislative Role for Presidents

Messages
- The State of the Union
- Annual Budget Message
- Enable presidents to shape the congressional agenda and enlist public opinion behind his priorities

Signature / Veto

Dynamics of presidential approval

Honeymoon (first ~6 months

Rally-around-the-flag (wars and foreign policy crises)

End-of-term improvement

Partisan polarization

Two Presidencies

Domestic policy
- Most of the president's power comes from being de facto leader of a party

Foreign policy
- The formal powers granted to the president as Commander-in-Chief are extensive

Plebiscitary presidency

President claims to represent "all the people"

A mandate, political capital, accountability moment

Always advantaged in public opinion as one person, one voice, instead of Congress' chaotic squabbling

Why does the bureaucracy matter?

Legislation is almost always vague

Bureaucrats establish the day-to-day implementation of legislation

Often empowered with broad mandates to make sweeping regulatory policy

Principal-Agent Theory

A principal authorizes someone else (an agent) to act on their behalf

Deviation from the principal's interest by the agent is referred to as agency cost/failure

Principals fail to monitor agents because delegation is supposed to save the principal time and resources

Impoundment

Presidential refusal to allow an agency to spend funds that Congress authorized and appropriated.

Police patrols v fire alarms

Preventing the principal-agent theory problem with bureaucracy through constant watch is counter-intuitive, SO "alarms" are set off by interest groups and other onlookers

What happens if Republicans in close-ish seats believe that their prospects in 2026 are pretty bad?

Many Republicans may choose to retire rather than face likely defeat

Democrats could see this as an opportunity and get their hopes up for flipping those seats

What strategies did Redman and his colleagues plan for passing S. 4106? Why did they eventually settle on the path they took?

Initially focused on securing an earmark instead of pushing the bill directly

Attempted to amend it into a larger existing bill

Took advantage of Sen Magnuson's influence on the Senate Appropriations Committee

Spent much time lobbying, planning, and building support before actually writing the bill

Eventually wrote and pursued the bill when the political and committee climate seemed favorable

Why was Sen. Magnuson's sponsorship so important to S. 4106's prospects? Or do you think Redman overstates his significance?

Magnuson was highly respected and powerful, holding chair positions on key committees like Commerce

Had a reputation for getting things done behind the scenes

Could use logrolling and favors to win support

His sponsorship signaled to others that the bill was serious and viable

One of a legislator's greatest assets is their staff. What made Redman such a valuable member of Sen. Magnuson's team?

Young, hardworking, loyal, and politically savvy

Willing to consult with others to improve strategy

Why are some lobbyists more effective than others?

- Greater resources and funding
- Stronger personal relationships with legislators and staff
- Deeper interest or knowledge in specific policy areas
- Ability to frame issues in politically advantageous ways