We demonstrate that senators use office allowances to create positive constituent service and policy expert impressions among voters, but the effects depend on the representational expectations of constituents and the nature of dual representation. Whether a senator shares the same party and represents a densely populated state in part determines the effectiveness of constituent service activities and efforts to establish policy expertise. The representational challenge faced by senators is more complicated than those faced by House members and more nuanced than the existing literature suggests. We conclude by examining the different challenges senators and representatives face in building representational relationships.
AlfordJohn R.BradyDavid W.1993. Personal and Partisan Advantage in U.S. Congressional Elections. 1846-1990. In Congress Reconsidered, 5th edition, edited by DoddLawrence C.OppenheimerBruce I., 141-57. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
2.
BelierDavid. 1994. How Frank Lucas won the image game and beat David Boren’s boy back home in Oklahoma. Campaigns and Elections, July.
3.
BennettJames T.DiLorenzoThomas J.1982. The political economy of political philosophy: Discretionary spending by senators on staff. The American Economic Review72:1153-61.
4.
BinderSarahMaltzmanForrestSigelmanLee. 1998. Senators’ home state reputations: Why do constituents love a Bill Cohen so much more than an Al D’Amato?Legislative Studies Quarterly23 (4): 545-60.
5.
BondJon R.1985. Dimensions of district attention over time. American Journal of Political Science29 (2): 330-47.
6.
Box-SteffensmeierJanet M.GrantJ. Tobin. 1999. All in a day’s work: The financial rewards of legislative effectiveness. Legislative Studies Quarterly24 (4): 511-23.
7.
Box-SteffensmeierJanet M.KimballDavid C.MeinkeScott R.TateKatherine. 2003. The effects of political representation on the electoral advantages of House incumbents. Political Research Quarterly56:259-70.
8.
CainBruceFerejohnJohnFiorinaMorris. 1987. The personal vote: Constituency service and electoral independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
ClymerAdam. 1999. John Chafee, a Republican senator and leading voice of bipartisanship, dies at 77. The New York Times, October26.
10.
ColloganDavid. 1996. The gentle lady from Kansas. Business and Commercial Aviation, 78, February.
11.
CoverAlbert D.1985. The electoral impact of franked congressional mail. Polity17:649-63.
12.
CoverAlbert D.BrumbergBruce S.1982. “Baby books and ballots: The impact of congressional mail on constituent opinion. American Political Science Review76:347-59.
13.
DwyerPaul E.1991. Salaries and allowances: The Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
14.
FennoRichard F.Jr.1978. Home style: House members in their districts. New York: Longman.
15.
FennoRichard F.Jr.1982. The United States Senate: A bicameral perspective. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute
16.
FennoRichard F.Jr.1991. Pete Domenici: The emergence of a Senate leader. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
17.
FennoRichard F.Jr.1992. When incumbency fails. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
18.
FennoRichard F.Jr.1996. Senators on the campaign trail: The politics of representation. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
19.
FiorinaMorris P.1989. Congress: The keystone of the Washington establishment. 2nd edition.New Haven: Yale University Press.
20.
FrischScott A.1998. The politics of pork: A study of congressional appropriation earmarks. New York: Garland.
21.
HerreraRichardYawnMichael. 1999. The emergence of the personal vote. Journal of Politics61:136-50.
22.
HibbingJohnAlfordJohn R.1990. Constituent population and representation in the U.S. Senate. Legislative Studies Quarterly15:581-98.
23.
HibbingJohn R.1993. Careerism in Congress: For better or for worse? In Congress reconsidered, 5th edition, edited by DoddLawrence C.OppenheimerBruce I., 67-88. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
24.
HillKim Q.HurleyPatricia A.2002. Symbolic speeches in the U.S. Senate and their representational implications. Journal of Politics64:219-31.
25.
JohannesJohn R.McAdamsJohn C.1981. The congressional incumbency effect: Is it casework, policy compatibility, or something else? An examination of the 1978 election. American Journal of Political Science25:512-42.
26.
JohnstonRichardShaferByron E.2006. The end of Southern exceptionalism: Class, race, and partisan change in the postwar South. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
27.
LeeFrances E.OppenheimerBruce I.1999. Sizing up the Senate: The unequal consequences of equal representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
LewisAnthony. 1988. The low road. The New York Times, August28.
29.
LipinskiDaniel. 2001. The effect of messages communicated by members of Congress: The impact of publicizing votes. Legislative Studies Quarterly26:81-100.
30.
LipinskiDaniel. 2004. Congressional communications: Content and consequences. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
31.
McAdamsJohn C.JohannesJohn R.1985. Constituency Attentiveness in the House: 1977-1982, The Journal of Politics47 (4): 1108-1139.
32.
McAdamsJohn C.JohannesJohn R.1988. Congressmen, perquisites, and elections. The Journal of Politics50:412-39.
33.
MilerKristina C.2007. View from the hill: Legislative perceptions of the district. Legislative Studies Quarterly32 (4): 597-628.
34.
ParkerDavid C. W.GoodmanCraig. 2009. Making a good impression: Resource allocation, home styles, and Washington work. Legislative Studies Quarterly34:493-534.
35.
ParkerGlenn R.1980. Sources of change in congressional district attentiveness. American Journal of Political Science24:115-24.
36.
ParkerGlenn R.1985. Stylistic change in the U.S. Senate: 1959-1980. The Journal of Politics47:1190-1202.
37.
ParkerGlenn R.1986. Homeward bound: Explaining changes in congressional behavior. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
38.
ParkerGlenn R.ParkerSuzanne L.1985. Correlates and effects of attention to district by U.S. House members. Legislative Studies Quarterly10:223-42.
39.
SchiffSteven H.SmithSteven S.1983. Generational change and the allocation of staff in the U.S. Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly8:457-67.
40.
SchaffnerBrian F.SchillerWendy J.SellersPatrick J.2003. Tactical and contextual determinants of U.S. Senators’ approval ratings. Legislative Studies Quarterly28:203-23.
41.
SchillerWendy J.2000. Partners and rivals: Representation in U.S. Senate delegations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
SerraGeorgeCoverAlbert D.1992. The electoral consequences of perquisite use: The casework case. Legislative Studies Quarterly17:233-46.
43.
SinclairBarbara. 1990. Washington behavior and home-state reputation: The impact of national prominence on senators’ images. Legislative Studies Quarterly15:475-94.
44.
TaggartWilliam A.DurantRobert F.1985. Home style of a U.S. Senator: A longitudinal analysis. Legislative Studies Quarterly10:489-504.
