The mobilization of organized interests is affected not only by social and economic “supply” factors but also by government-related “demand” factors. The authors assess the impact of government activity on the mobilization of interests by examining how federal policy activity stimulates lobbying activity in the states. Empirically, they do this by introducing the federal hearings data used by Leech et al. into the model of state lobbying registrations used by Gray et al. The authors find that congressional hearings in a particular issue area have significant—albeit complex— effects on the mobilization of state interest organizations in that same area.
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones .1993. Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Christine Mahoney .2004. Social movements and the rise of new issues. In Routing the opposition: Social movements, public policy and democracy, ed. Helen Ingram , Valerie Jenness and David S. Meyer, 65-86. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
3.
Berry, William D., Michael B. Berkman, and Stuart Schneiderman .2000. Legislative professionalism and incumbent reelection: The development of institutional boundaries. American Political Science Review94:859-74.
4.
Bowling, Cynthia J., and Margaret R. Ferguson .2001. Divided government, interest representation, and policy differences: Competing explanations of gridlock in the fifty states. Journal of Politics63:182-206.
5.
Campbell, Andrea L.2005. How policies make citizens: Senior political activism and the American welfare state. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
Daley, Dorothy M., and James C. Garand .2005. Horizontal diffusion, vertical diffusion, and internal pressure in state environmental policymaking, 1989-1998 . American Politics Research33:615-44.
7.
Davis, Gray.2002. California takes on air pollution and greenhouse gases . Washington Post. July 22.
8.
Gray, Virginia, and David Lowery.1995a. The demography of interest organization communities: Institutions, associations, and membership groups. American Politics Quarterly23:3-32.
---. 1998. State lobbying regulations and their enforcement: Implications for the diversity of state interest communities. State and Local Government Review30:78-91.
11.
Gray, Virginia, David Lowery, Matthew Fellowes, and Jennifer Anderson .2005. Understanding the demand-side of lobbying: Interest system energy in the American states. American Politics Research33:404-34.
12.
Gray, Virginia, David Lowery, and Erik K. Godwin .2007a. The politics of managed care: Explaining variations in state health maintenance organizations regulations . Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law32:457-95.
13.
---. 2007b. Public preferences and organized interests in health policy: State pharmacy assistance programs as innovations. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law32:89-129.
14.
Gray, Virginia, David Lowery, Erik Godwin, and James Monogan.2005. Incrementing toward nowhere: Universal health care coverage in the states. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
15.
Grodzins, Morton.1966. The American system: A new view of government in the United States. Chicago: Rand McNally.
16.
Hecht, Stacey Hunter.2001. Laboratories or lighthouses: The states, the federal government, and social policy innovation. PhD diss., Univ. of Minnesota .
17.
Heinz, John P., Edward O. Laumann, Robert L. Nelson, and Robert H. Salisbury .1993. The hollow core. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
18.
Johnson, Haynes, and David S. Broder .1996. The system: The American way of politics at the breaking point. Boston: Little, Brown.
19.
Jones, Bryan D., and Frank Baumgartner .2005. The politics of attention: How governments prioritize problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
Karch, Andrew.2007. Democratic laboratories: Policy diffusion among the American states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
21.
Keiderman, Eric.2007. State immigration laws multiply. http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=229930.
22.
King, James D.2000. Changes in professionalism in U.S. state legislatures . Legislative Studies Quarterly25:327-43.
23.
Kurtz, Karl T.1992. Understanding the diversity of American state legislatures . Legislative Studies Section Newsletter (June): 2-5.
24.
Leech, Beth L., Frank R. Baumgartner, Timothy La Pira, and Nicholas A. Semanko .2005. Drawing lobbyists to Washington: Government activity and interest-group mobilization. Political Research Quarterly58:19-30.
25.
Lowery, David, and Virginia Gray.1994a. Do lobbying regulations influence lobbying registrations. Social Science Quarterly75:382-84.
26.
---. 1994b. The nationalization of state interest group system density and diversity. Social Science Quarterly75:368-77.
27.
---. 1995. The population ecology of Gucci Gulch, or the natural regulation of interest group numbers in theAmerican states. American Journal of Political Science39:1-29.
28.
---. 1997. How some rules just don’t matter: The regulation of lobbyists. Public Choice91:139-47.
29.
---. 1998. Representational concentration and interest community size: A population ecology interpretation. Political Research Quarterly51:919-44.
30.
---. 2001. The expression of density dependence in state communities of organized interests. American Politics Research29:374-91.
31.
Lowery, David, Virginia Gray, and Matthew Fellowes .2005a. Organized interests and political extortion: A test of the fetcher bill hypothesis. Social Science Quarterly86:368-85.
32.
---. 2005b. Sisyphus meets the borg: Economic scale and the inequalities in interest representation. Journal of Theoretical Politics17:41-74.
33.
Mettler, Suzanne.2005. Soldiers into citizens: The G.I. Bill and the making of the greatest generation. New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
Mintrom, Michael.1997. Policy entrepreneurship and the diffusion of innovation . American Journal of Political Science41:738-70.
35.
Mooney, Christopher Z.1994. Measuring U.S. state legislative professionalism: An evaluation of five indices. State and Local Government Review26:70-78.
36.
Mossberger, Karen.1999. State-federal diffusion and policy learning: From enterprise zones to empowerment zones. Publius29:31-50.
37.
National Conference of State Legislatures.2007. Immigrant policy project: Overview of state legislation related to immigration and immigrants in 2007. http://ww.ncsl.org/programs/immig/2007StateLegislationImmigration.htm.
38.
Rabinowitz, George, and Stuart Elaine Macdonald .1989. A directional theory of voting . American Political Science Review83 (1): 93-121.
39.
Shipan, Charles R., and Craig Volden.2006. Bottom-up federalism: The diffusion of antismoking policies from U.S. cities to states. American Journal of Political Science50:825-43.
40.
Skocpol, Theda.1992. Protecting soldiers and mothers: The political origins of social policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
Skocpol, Theda, Marjorie Abend-Wein, Christopher Howard, and Susan Goodrich Lehmann.1993. Women’s associations and the enactment of mothers’ pensions in the United States. American Political Science Review87:686-701.
42.
Soss, Joe B.2002. Unwanted claims: The politics of participation in the U.S. welfare system. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
43.
Squire, Peverill.1992. Legislative professionalization and membership diversity in state legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly17:69-79.
44.
Squire, Peverill, and Keith E. Hamm .2005. 101 chambers: Congress, state legislatures, and the future of legislative studies. Columbus : Ohio State University Press.
45.
Tews, Kerstin, Per-Olof Busch, and Helge Jorgens.2003. The diffusion of new environmental policy instruments. European Journal of Political Research42:569-600.
46.
Thomas, Clive S., and Ronald J. Hrebenar .1992. The integration of interest group activity at the national, state and local level in the United States: Extent, causes and consequences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
47.
Truman, David.1951. The governmental process. New York : Knopf.
48.
U.S. Census Bureau.2000. Statistical abstract of the United States: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
49.
Walker, Jack L., Jr.1969. The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review63:880-99.
50.
---. 1991. Mobilizing interest groups in America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
51.
Wawro, Gregory.2000. Legislative entrepreneurship in the U.S. House of Representatives . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
52.
Weissert, Carol S.1991. Policy entrepreneurs, policy opportunists, and legislative effectiveness. American Politics Research19:262-74.
53.
Weissert, Carol S., and William G. Weissert .2002. Governing health. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
54.
West, Darrell M., Diane Heith, and Chris Goodwin.1996. Harry and Louise go to Washington: Political advertising and health care reform. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law21:35-68.
55.
Wolak, Jennifer, Adam Newmark, Todd McNoldy, David Lowery, and Virginia Gray.2002. Much of politics is still local: Multi-state lobbying in state interest communities. Legislative Studies Quarterly27:527-56.
