There is a debate about the extent of the Senate majority party’s influence and the conditions under which it is used. This article demonstrates that the majority party influences legislative outcomes to meet electoral goals and protect its reputation by manipulating the consideration of the dozen annual appropriations bills. The majority party limits amendments and eases passage of the budget when it abandons the “regular order” and creates an omnibus appropriations bill. It is more likely to abandon the regular order when it is ideologically divided, has a small margin of control, or is distant from the minority.
AldrichJohn. 2011. Why Parties? A Second Look. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
2.
AldrichJohnRohdeDavid W.2000. “The Republican Revolution and the House Appropriations Committee.” The Journal of Politics61 (1): 1–33.
3.
AldrichJohnRohdeDavid W.2001. “The Logic of Conditional Party Government: Revisiting the Electoral Connection.” In Congress Reconsidered, edited by DoddLawrenceOppenheimerBruce, 269-292. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
4.
BerryWilliamFeldmanStanley. 1985. Multiple Regression in Practice. Newbury Park: SAGE.
5.
BinderSarah. 2003. Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
6.
BradyDavidVoldenCraig. 2006. Revolving Gridlock: Politics and Policy from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush. Boulder: Westview Press.
7.
CarsonJamieMadonnaAnthony. 2010. “Partisan Efficiency in an Open-Rule Setting: The Amending Process in the U.S. Senate, 1865–1946.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 2010.
8.
CoxGaryMcCubbinsMathew. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9.
DavidsonRogerOleszekWalterLeeFrances. 2012. Congress and Its Members. 13th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
10.
Den HartogChrisMonroeNathan W.2011. Agenda Setting in the U.S. Senate: Costly Consideration and Majority Party Advantage. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11.
EvansDiana. 2004. Greasing the Wheels: Using Pork Barrel Projects to Build Majority Coalitions in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
FennoRichard. 1966. The Power of the Purse: Appropriations Politics in Congress. Boston: Little, Brown.
13.
FennoRichard. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little, Brown.
14.
FennoRichard. 1989. “The Senate through the Looking Glass: The Debate over Television.” Legislative Studies Quarterly14 (3): 313–48.
15.
GailmardSeanJenkinsJeffrey. 2007. “Negative Agenda Control in the Senate and House: Fingerprints of Majority Party Power.” The Journal of Politics69 (3): 689–700.
16.
Holtz-EakinDouglas. 2004. “Reforming the Federal Budget Process.” CBO Testimony. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office.
17.
JacobsonGary. 2009. The Politics of Congressional Elections. 7th ed. New York: Pearson Longman.
18.
KiewietD. RoderickMcCubbinsMathew. 1991. The Logic of Delegation: Congressional Parties and the Appropriations Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
KrehbielKeith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
KrutzGlen. 2000. “Getting Around Gridlock: The Effect of Omnibus Utilization on Legislative Productivity.” Legislative Studies Quarterly25 (4): 533–49.
21.
KrutzGlen. 2001. “Tactical Maneuvering on Omnibus Bills in Congress.” American Journal of Political Science45 (1): 210–23.
22.
LeeFrances. 2009. Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U.S. Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
LeeFrances. 2012. “Individual and Partisan Activism on the Senate Floor.” In The U.S. Senate: From Deliberation to Dysfunction, edited by LoomisBurdett, 110-131. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
24.
LeLoupLance. 2005. Parties, Rules and the Evolution of Congressional Budgeting. Columbus: Ohio State University.
25.
MayhewDavid. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
26.
MonroeNathan W.RobertsJason, eds. 2008. Why Not Parties? Party Effects in the United States Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
NelsonDalmas H.1953. “The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1950.” The Journal of Politics15 (2): 274–88.
28.
OleszekWalter. 2007. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. 7th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
29.
RaeNicolCampbellColton. 2001. “Party Politics and Ideology in the Contemporary Senate.” In The Contentious Senate: Partisanship, Ideology and the Myth of Cool Judgment, edited by RaeNicolCampbellColton, 1-18. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
30.
RikerWilliam H.1982. Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
31.
SchickAllen. 2007. The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, Process. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
ShepsleKenneth A.BonchekMark. 1997. Analyzing Politics: Rationality, Behavior, and Institutions. New York: W.W. Norton.
34.
ShepsleKenneth A.Van HouwelingRobert P.AbramsSamuel J.HansonPeter C.2009. “The Senate Electoral Cycle and Bicameral Appropriations Politics.” American Journal of Political Science53 (2): 343–59.
35.
ShepsleKenneth A.WeingastBarry. 1981. “Political Preference for the Pork Barrel: A Generalization.” American Journal of Political Science26:86–111.
36.
SinclairBarbara. 1986. “Senate Styles and Senate Decision Making, 1955-1980.” The Journal of Politics48 (4): 877–908.
37.
SinclairBarbara. 2002. “The ‘60-Vote Senate’: Strategies, Process and Outcomes.” In U.S. Senate Exceptionalism, edited by OppenheimerBruce, 241-261. Columbus: Ohio State University.
38.
SinclairBarbara. 2005. “The New World of U.S. Senators.” In Congress Reconsidered, edited by DoddLawrenceOppenheimerBruce, 1-22. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
39.
SinclairBarbara. 2012a. “Senate Parties and Party Leadership, 1960–2010.” In The U.S. Senate: From Deliberation to Dysfunction, edited by LoomisBurdett, 85-109. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
40.
SinclairBarbara. 2012b. Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
41.
SmithSteve. 2005. “Parties and Leadership in the Senate.” In The Legislative Branch, edited by QuirkPaul J.BinderSarah A., 255-278. New York: Oxford University Press.
42.
SmithSteve. 2007. Party Influence in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43.
SmithSteve. 2010. The Senate Syndrome. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
44.
WawroGregorySchicklerEric. 2006. Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
45.
WildavskyAaronCaidenNaomi. 2004. The New Politics of the Budgetary Process. 5th ed. New York: Pearson Longman.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
