Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:57:24.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Groups as Lawmakers: Group Bills in a US State Legislature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2022

Mary Kroeger Open the ORCID record for Mary Kroeger [Opens in a new window]
Mary Kroeger*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill, NC, USA
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scholars posit that groups play an important role in the legislative process and legislator decision making, but find these questions difficult to empirically study due to the private information exchanges. This article exploits a legislative reporting institution to explore group involvement in policy making. In the California state legislature, extra-legislative individuals or organizations that write legislation and secure a legislator to author the bill may be listed as sponsors. Data come from California bill analyses and extend from 1993 to 2014. This group tactic is frequently used: 40% of bills introduced and over 60% of bills that become law list an extra-legislative sponsor. Group sponsorship is significantly related to passage, even after matching on a number of covariates. Legislators use fewer group bills and substitute out of group bills as they gain experience. Group input serves as an integral part of a legislative portfolio and the agenda-setting stage of legislative decision making.

Keywords

Interest groupsstate legislatureslegislative effectivenessbill passage
Type
Original Article
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 204 - 225
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Hobson Dewey. 1942. California State Government. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, William D., Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Sinclair-Chapman, Valeria. 2003. “The Keys to Legislative Success in the US House of Representatives.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 28 (3): 357–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Ginsberg, Benjamin, Shepsle, Kenneth, and Lowi, Theodore. 2010. American Government: Power and Purpose. New York: WW Norton.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, De Figueiredo, John M. and Snyder, James M.. 2003. “Why is There so Little Money in US Politics?” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 17 (1): 105–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Leech, Beth L.. 1998. Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Jones, Bryan D.. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R Berry, Jeffrey M, Hojnacki, Marie, Kimball, David C., and Leech, Beth L. 2009. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Jeffrey M. 1989. The Interest Group Society. 2nd edition. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Grant, J. Tobin. 1999. “All in a Day’s Work: The Financial Rewards of Legislative Effectiveness.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24 (4): 511–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, Katharine W. V 2014. “Who Lobbies the Lobbyists? Bureaucratic Influence on State Medicaid Legislation.” PhD thesis. University of Michigan, https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/107219/kvdbroek_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.Google Scholar
Bradley, Katharine W. V., and Haselswerdt, Jake. 2016. “Who Lobbies the Lobbyists? State Medicaid Bureaucrats’ Engagement in the Legislative Process.” Journal of Public Policy 38: 1–29.Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce E., and Kousser, Thad. 2004. Adapting to Term Limits: Recent Experiences and New Directions. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California, http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1104BCR.pdf.Google Scholar
Cotton, Christopher S., and Dellis, Arnaud. 2016. “Informational lobbying and agenda distortion.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 32 (4): 762–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 2005. Who Governs?: Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
de Sa, Karen. 2010a. “Legislature’s Novices Look to Lobbyists.” The Daily Breeze, https://www.dailynews.com/2010/07/17/legislatures-novices-look-to-lobbyists/.Google Scholar
de Sa, Karen. 2010b. “Sponsored Bills in Sacramento: Outsiders have Hijacked State Legislature.” San Jose Mercury News, http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_15489181.Google Scholar
Diamond, Alexis, and Sekhon, Jasjeet S.. 2013. “Genetic Matching for Estimating Causal Effects: A General Multivariate Matching Method for Achieving Balance in Observational Studies.” Review of Economics and Statistics 95 (3): 932–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fouirnaies, Alexander. 2017. “When Are Agenda Setters Valuable?” American Journal of Political Science 62 (1): 176–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin, and Page, Benjamin I.. 2014. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on politics 12 (3):564–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Rebecca, and You, Hye Young. 2017. “Cities as Lobbyists.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (4): 864–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Richard L. 1996. Participation in Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard L., and Deardorff, Alan V.. 2006. “Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy.” American Political Science Review 100 (01): 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Richard L., and Wayman, Frank W.. 1990. “Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees.” American Political Science Review 84 (03): 797–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, John Mark. 1991. Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919–1981. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heaney, Michael T. 2006. “Brokering Health Policy: Coalitions, Parties, and Interest Group Influence.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 31 (5): 887–944.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, John, and Chatfield, Sara. 2011. “Who Matches? Propensity Scores and Bias in the Causal Effects of Education on Participation.” The Journal of Politics 73 (03): 646–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander. 2014. “Who Passes Business’s “Model Bills”? Policy Capacity and Corporate Influence in US State Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 12 (3): 582–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, Alexander V., and Shotts, Kenneth W.. 2018. “Policy-development monopolies: adverse consequences and institutional responses.” The Journal of Politics 80(4):698930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrebenar, Ronald J., and Thomas, Clive S.. 2010. Interest Group Politics in the Northeastern States. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.Google Scholar
Huber, John D., and Shipan, Charles R.. 2002. Deliberate Discretion?: The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keele, Luke. 2010. “An Overview of rbounds: An R Package for Rosenbaum Bounds Sensitivity Analysis with Matched Data.” White Paper. Columbus, OH, http://www.personal.psu.edu/ljk20/rbounds%20vignette.pdf.Google Scholar
Klarner, Carl Berry, William D., Carsey, Thomas M., Jewell, Malcolm, Niemi, Richard, Powell, Lynda, and Snyder, James 2013. State Legislative Election Returns (1967–2010). Ann Arbor, MI: Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research.Google Scholar
Kousser, Thad. 2006. “The Limited Impact of Term Limits: Contingent Effects on the Complexity and Breadth of Laws.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 6 (4): 410–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroeger, Mary. 2021. “Replication Data for: Groups as Lawmakers: Group Bills in a U.S. State Legislature.” UNC Dataverse, V1. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.15139/S3/ZYSJBH.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krutz, Glen S. 2005. “Issues and Institutions: “Winnowing” in the US Congress.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 313–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey. n.d. “California Assembly and Senate Roll Call Votes, 1993 to the Present.” http://amypond.sscnet.ucla.edu/california/.Google Scholar
Lipton, Eric, and Protess, Ben. 2013. “Banks’ Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills.” New York Times, http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/banks-lobbyists-help-in-drafting-financial-bills/?ref=politics.Google Scholar
Loewen, Peter John, Koop, Royce, Settle, Jaime and Fowler, James H.. 2014. “A Natural Experiment in Proposal Power and Electoral Success.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (1): 189–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88 (01): 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masunaga, Samantha. 2015. “We’re No. 8: California Near Top of World’s Largest Economies.” Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-world-economy-20150702-story.html.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1991. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946–1990. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan. 2017. “The Regulation and Self-Regulation of a Complex Industry.” The Journal of Politics 79 (4): 1220–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, John. 2015. “For California’s Powerful, Following the Law Often Means Writing it Yourself.” KQED: Public Media for Northern California http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/04/16/political-muscle-of-california-powerful-often-means-writing-your-own-legislation/.Google Scholar
Mills, Russell W., and Selin, Jennifer L.. 2017. “Don’t Sweat the Details! Enhancing Congressional Committee Expertise Through the Use of Detailees.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 42 (4): 611–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintrom, Michael. 1997. “Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 738–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nourse, Victoria, and Schacter, Jane S.. 2002. “The Politics of Legislative Drafting: A Congressional Case Study.” New York University Law Review 77: 575–623.Google Scholar
OpenStates. 2016. “Open States Bulk Downloads.” http://openstates.org/downloads/.Google Scholar
Padró i Miquel, Gerard, and Snyder, James M.. 2006. “Legislative Effectiveness and Legislative Careers.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 31 (3): 347–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payson, Julia. 2016. “Cities in the Statehouse: The Distributive Consequences of Municipal Lobbying.” Working Paper, Stanford University, https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bw6L09XqYY4zNzJqMW5rUVVMRDg.Google Scholar
Rocca, Michael S., and Gordon, Stacy B.. 2010. “The Position-Taking Value of Bill Sponsorship in Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 63 (2): 387–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R. 2002. Observational Studies. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenhall, Laurel. 2013. “California Legislation Often ‘Sponsored’—or Even Written—By Interest Groups.” Sacramento Bee, http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article2577337.html.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Schiller, Wendy J. 1995. “Senators as Political Entrepreneurs: Using Bill Sponsorship to Shape Legislative Agendas.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (1): 186–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Verba, Sidney, and Brady, Henry E.. 2012. The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sekhon, Jasjeet S. 2011. “Multivariate and Propensity Score Matching Software with Automated Balance Optimization: The Matching package for R.” Journal of Statistical Software 42 (i07) 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shobe, Jarrod. 2014. “Intertemporal Statutory Interpretation and the Evolution of Legislative Drafting.” Columbia Law Review 114: 807.Google Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 1992. “Legislative Professionalization and Membership Diversity in State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17: 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truman, David B. 1960. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York: Alfred A. Knope, Incorporated.Google Scholar
Tucker, Harvey J. 1989. “Legislative Calendars and Workload Management in Texas.” Journal of Politics 51 (3): 631–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volden, Craig, and Wiseman, Alan E. 2014. Legislative Effectiveness in the United States Congress: The Lawmakers. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Christopher J. 2017. “Legislating in the Shadows.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 165: 1377–465.Google Scholar
Wawro, Gregory. 2001. Legislative Entrepreneurship in the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Woon, Jonathan. 2008. “Bill Sponsorship in Congress: The Moderating Effect of Agenda Positions on Legislative Proposals.” Journal of Politics 70 (1): 201–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zellner, Arnold. 1962. “An Efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and Tests for Aggregation Bias.” Journal of the American statistical Association 57 (298): 348–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Kroeger Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.15139/S3/ZYSJBH
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Kroeger supplementary material

Kroeger et al. supplementary material
Download Kroeger supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.5 MB