Congressional party leaders are hypothesized to use desirable committee assignments as a selective incentive to entice incumbent members of Congress to contribute the collective good of the party’s campaign efforts. Financial contributions to the party are an effective measure of party loyalty, particularly in an era of high levels of party loyalty on roll call votes. This article analyzes committee transfers in the U.S. Congress from the 102nd through the 107th Congresses. The evidence shows that the greater the amount an incumbent contributes to party committees or party candidates, the more likely he or she will transfer to prestige committees. It also demonstrates that fundraising has become more closely related to prestige committee transfers when margins of party control in the House became very close after the Republican takeover.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adler, E. Scott, and John S. Lipinski. 1997. “Demand-Side Theory and Congressional Committee Composition: A Constituency Characteristics Approach.”American Journal of Political Science41: 895-918.
2.
Allen, Mike. 2000. “House GOP Goes Within for Money.”Washington Post, June 14, A1-A1.
3.
Baker, Ross K.1989. The New Fat Cats: Members of Congress as Political Benefactors. New York: Priority Press.
4.
Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa. 1990-2000. The Almanac of American Politics. Washington, DC: National Review.
5.
Bianco, William T., and Robert H. Bates. 1990. “Cooperation by Design: Leadership, Structure, and Collective Dilemmas.”American Political Science Review84: 133-147.
6.
Cox, Gary W., and Eric Magar. 1999. “How Much is Majority Status in the U.S. Congress Worth?”American Political Science Review93: 299-309.
7.
Cox, Gary W., and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Deering, Christopher J., and Steven S. Smith. 1997. Committees in Congress, 3rd ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
10.
Fenno, Richard F., Jr.1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
11.
Fiorina, Morris P.1989. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment, 2nd ed.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
Gimpel, James G.1996. Fulfilling the Contract. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
13.
Grenzke, Janet. 1989. “Candidate Attributes and PAC Contributions.”Western Political Quarterly42: 245-264.
14.
Grier, Kevin B., and Michael C. Munger. 1993. “Comparing Interest Group Contributions to House and Senate Incumbents, 1980-1986.”Journal of Politics55: 615-643.
15.
Groseclose, Timothy, and Charles Stewart III. 1998. “The Value of Committee Assignments in the House, 1947-91.”American Journal of Political Science42: 453-474.
16.
Hall, Richard L., and Bernard Grofman. 1990. “The Committee Assignment Process and the Conditional Nature of Committee Bias.”American Political Science Review84: 1149-1166.
17.
Heberlig, Eric S., and Bruce A. Larson. 2002. “Campaign Contributions by Members of Congress: The Spiraling Costs of the Permanent Campaign.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.
18.
Herrnson, Paul S.1997. “Money and Motives: Spending in House Elections.” In Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer, eds., Congress Reconsidered, 6th ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
19.
Herrnson, Paul S.2000. Congressional Elections, 3rd ed.Washington, DC: CQ Press.
20.
Jackson, Brooks. 1988. Honest Graft. New York: Knopf.
21.
Jacobson, Gary C.1985-86. “Party Organization and Distribution of Campaign Resources: Republicans and Democrats in 1982.”Political Science Quarterly100: 603-625.
22.
Jacobson, Gary C.2001. The Politics of Congressional Elections, 5th ed.New York: Longman.
23.
Jewell, Malcolm E., and Chu Chi-Hung. 1974. “Membership Movement and Committee Attractiveness in the U.S. House of Representatives.”American Journal of Political Science18: 433-441.
24.
Kiewiet, D. Roderick, and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1991. The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
26.
Maltzmann, Forrest. 1997. Competing Principals: Committees, Parties, and the Organization of Congress. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
27.
Masters, Nicholas A.1961. “Committee Assignments in the House of Representatives.”American Political Science Review55: 345-357.
28.
Mayhew, David R.1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29.
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
Ornstein, Norman J., and Thomas E. Mann. 2000. The Permanent Campaign and Its Future. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
31.
Rohde, David W.1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
Rohde, David W., and Kenneth A. Shepsle. 1973. “Democratic Committee Assignments in the House of Representatives: Strategic Aspects of a Social Choice Process.”American Political Science Review67: 889-905.
33.
Romer, Thomas, and James M. Snyder, Jr.1994. “An Empirical Investigation of the Dynamics of PAC Contributions.”American Journal of Political Science38: 745-769.
34.
Sabato, Larry J., and Bruce A. Larson. 2002. The Party’s Just Begun, 2nd ed.New York: Longman.
35.
Shepsle, Kenneth A.1978. The Giant Jigsaw Puzzle: Democratic Committee Assignments in the Modern House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Barry R. Weingast. 1987. “The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power.”American Political Science Review81: 85-104.
37.
Smith, Richard A.1995. “Interest Group Influence in the U.S. Congress.”Legislative Studies Quarterly20: 89-139.
38.
Smith, Steven S., and Bruce A. Ray. 1983. “The Impact of Congressional Reform: House Democratic Committee Assignments.”Congress & the Presidency10: 219-240.
39.
Wawro, Gregory. 2000. Legislative Entrprenuership in the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
40.
Wilcox, Clyde. 1989. “Share the Wealth: Contributions by Congressional Incumbents to the Campaigns of Other Candidates.”American Politics Quarterly17: 386-408.
