This paper examines the role that racial and ethnic diversity plays in improving the legislative success of minority interest groups. Relying on campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures to explain minority interest groups’ influence on legislators’ behavior is not sufficient, because most minority organizations are public charities, or 501(c)(3) organizations, and as such are both banned by federal law from making candidate contributions and limited in how much they can spend on federal lobbying. I argue, however, that the inclusion of more blacks and Latinos on congressional committees enhances the lobbying influence—and thus the legislative success—of civil rights organizations in Congress. Using data from lobbying disclosure reports on bills supported by black American and Latino civil rights groups in the 110th Congress (2007–2008) and 111th Congress (2009–2010), as well as House markup data, I find that National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCR), and UnidosUS-supported bills referred to House committees with greater proportions of racial and ethnic minorities received more markups than did bills referred to House committees with less diversity. Diversity is significant in predicting committee attention even when accounting for possible confounding factors, including committee jurisdiction and the ideological composition of committee membership.
AlvarezMichaelAbrajanoMarisa. 2012. New Faces, New Voices: The Hispanic Electorate in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
2.
BarretoMattSeguraGary M.2014. Latino America: How America’s Most Dynamic Population Is Poised to Transform the Politics of the Nation. New York: Public Affairs Books.
3.
BauerRaymond A.PoolIthiel de SolaDexterLewis A.1963. American Business and Public Policy: The Politics of Foreign Trade. New York: Atherton Press.
4.
BaumgartnerFrank R.BerryJeffrey M.HojnackiMarieKimballDavid C.LeechBeth L.2009. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BaumgartnerFrank R.LeechBeth L.1998. Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
6.
BehnkenBrian D.2011. Fighting Their Own Battles: Mexican Americans, African Americans, and the Struggle for Civil Rights in Texas. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
7.
BerryJeffrey M.2000. The New Liberalism: The Rising Power of Citizen Groups. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
8.
BerryJeffrey M.AronsDavid. 2003. A Voice for Nonprofits. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
9.
CameronCharlesEpsteinDavidO’HalloranSharyn. 1996. “Do Majority-Minority Districts Maximize Substance Black Representation in Congress?” American Political Science Review90:794–812.
10.
CanonDavid T.1999. Race, Redistricting, and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
CasellasJason P.2011. Latino Representation in State Houses and Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
ClayWillam L.1993. Just Permanent Interests: Black Americans in Congress 1870-1992. New York: Amistad Press.
13.
CohenCathy J.1999. The Boundaries of Blackness: AIDS and the Breakdown of Black Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
DavidsonChandlerGrofmanBernard, eds. 1994. Quiet Revolution in the South: The Impact of the Voting Rights Act, 1965-1990. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
15.
FrancisMegan Ming. 2014. Civil Rights and the Making of the Modern American State. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
GambleKatrina L.2007. “Black Political Representation: An Examination of Legislative Activity within U.S. House Committees.” Legislative Studies Quarterly32:421–47.
17.
GinsbergBenjaminGreenJohn C.1986. “The Best Congress Money Can Buy: Campaign Contributions and Congressional Behavior.” In Do Elections Matter? edited by GinsbergBenjaminStoneAlan, 75–89. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
18.
GordonStacy B.2001. “All Votes Are Not Equal: Campaign Contributions and Critical Votes.” Journal of Politics63:249–69.
19.
GrenzkeJanet. 1989. “Shopping in the Congressional Supermarket.” American Political Science Review33:1–24.
20.
GrofmanBernard, ed. 1998. Race and Redistricting in the 1990s. New York: Agathon Press.
21.
GroseChristian. 2011. Congress in Black and White: Race and Representation in Washington and at Home. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
GuinierLani. 1994. The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy. New York: The Free Press.
23.
HallRichard L.1996. Participation in Congress. New Haven: Yale University Press.
24.
HallRichard L.DeardorffAlan V.2006. “Lobbying as a Legislative Subsidy.” American Political Science Review100:69–84.
25.
HallRichard L.WaymanFrank W.1990. “Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees.” American Political Science Review84:797–820.
26.
HansenJohn Mark. 1991. Gaining Access: Congress and the Farm Lobby, 1919-1981. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
HeroRodney E.1992. Latinos and the U.S. Political System: Two-Tiered Pluralism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
28.
HeroRodney E.PreuhsRobert R.2013. Black-Latino Relations in U.S. National Politics: Beyond Conflict or Cooperation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
HeroRodney E.TolbertCaroline J.1995. “Latinos and Substantive Representation in the U.S. House of Representatives: Direct, Indirect, or Nonexistent?” American Journal of Political Science39:640–52.
30.
HojnackiMarieKimballDavid C.1998. “Organized Interests and the Decision of Whom to Lobby in Congress.” American Political Science Review92:775–90.
31.
HojnackiMarieKimballDavid C.1999. “The Who and How of Organizations’ Lobbying Strategies in Committee.” Journal of Politics61:999–1024.
32.
HojnackiMarieKimballDavid. 2001. “PAC Contributions and Lobbying Contacts in Congressional Committees.” Political Research Quarterly54:161–80.
33.
Jones-CorreaMichael. 2011. “Commonalities, Competition and Linked Fate.” In Just Neighbors? Research on African American and Latino Relations in the United States, edited by TellesEdwardSawyerMark Q.Rivera-SalgadoGaspar, 63–95. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
34.
KallaJoshuaBroockmanDavid E.2016. “Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Officials: A Randomized Field Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science60 (3): 545–58.
35.
KaplowitzCraig A.2005. LULAC, Mexican Americans and National Policy. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
36.
King-MeadowsTyson D.2011. When the Letter Betrays the Spirit: Voting Rights Enforcement and African American Participation for Lyndon Johnson to Barack Obama. Lanham: Lexington Books.
37.
KousserJ. Morgan. 1999. Colorblind Injustice: Minority Voting Rights and the Undoing of the Second Reconstruction. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
38.
KrutzGlen S.2005. “Issues and Institutions: ‘Winnowing’ in the U.S. Congress.” American Journal of Political Science49:313–26.
39.
LangbeinLaura. 1993. “PACs, Lobbies, and Political Conflict: The Case of Gun Control.” Public Choice75:254–71.
40.
Lavariega MonfortiJessica. 2005. “Conclusion: The Myths and Realities of Black and Latino/a Politics.” In Black and Latino/a Politics: Issues in Political Development in the United States, edited by Nelson Jr.William E.MonfortiJessica Lavariega, 249–53. Miami: Barnhardt & Ashe.
41.
LublinDavid. 1997. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
42.
MarquezBenjamin. 1993. LULAC: The Evolution of a Mexican American Political Organization. Austin: University of Texas Press.
43.
MartinezDeirdre. 2009. Who Speaks for Hispanics? Hispanic Interest Groups in Washington. Albany: State University of New York Press.
44.
McClainPaula D.1993. “The Changing Dynamics of Urban Politics: Black and Hispanic Municipal Government—Is There Competition?” Journal of Politics55:399–414.
45.
MintaMichael D.2009. “Legislative Oversight and the Substantive Representation of Black and Latino Interests in Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly34:193–218.
46.
MintaMichael D.2011. Oversight: Representing Black and Latino Interests in Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
47.
MintaMichael D.BrownNadia E.2014. “Intersecting Interests: Gender, Race, and Congressional Attention to Women’s Issues.” Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race11:253–72.
48.
MintaMichael D.Sinclair-ChapmanValeria. 2013. “Diversity in Congress and Institutional Responsiveness, 1951-2004.” Political Research Quarterly66:127–39.
49.
MorrisAldon D.1984. The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing for Change. New York: The Free Press.
50.
OverbyL. MarvinCosgroveKenneth M.1996. “Unintended Consequences? Racial Redistricting and the Representation of Minority Interests.” Journal of Politics58:540–50.
51.
PinderhughesDianne M.1995. “Black Interest Groups and the 1982 Extension of the Voting Rights Act.” In Blacks and the American Political System, edited by PerryH. L., 203–24. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
52.
RiversChristina R.2012. The Congressional Black Caucus, Minority Voting Rights, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
53.
RouseStella M.2013. Latinos in the Legislative Process: Interests and Influence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
54.
SchattschneiderElmer Eric. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. 1st ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
55.
SchlozmanKay Lehman. 1984. “What Accent the Heavenly Chorus? Political Equality and the American Pressure System.” The Journal of Politics46:1006–32.
56.
SchlozmanKay LehmanTierneyJohn T.1986. Organized Interests and American Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
57.
SchlozmanKay LehmanVerbaSidneyBradyHenry E.2012. The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
58.
ShottsKenneth W.2003. “Does Racial Redistricting Cause Conservative Policy Outcomes? Policy Preferences of Southern Representatives in the 1980s and 1990s.” Journal of Politics65:216–26.
59.
SmithMark A.2000. American Business and Political Power: Public Opinion, Elections, and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
60.
StrolovitchDara Z.2007. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
61.
SwainCarol M.1993. Black Faces, Black Interests: The Repre-sentation of African Americans in Congress. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
62.
TateKatherine. 2003. Black Faces in the Mirror: African Americans and Their Representatives in the U.S. Congress. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
63.
TellesEdwardSawyerMark Q.Rivera-SalgadoGaspar, eds. 2011. Just Neighbors? Research on African American and Latino Relations in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
64.
TysonVanessa C.2016. Twists of Fate: Multiracial Coalitions and Minority Representation in the US House of Represen-tatives. New York: Oxford University Press.
65.
VoldenCraigWisemanAlan E.2014. Legislative Effectiveness in the United States Congress: The Lawmakers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
66.
WalkerJack L.1983. “The Origins and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America.” American Political Science Review77:390–406.
67.
WallaceSophia J.2014. “Representing Latinos: Examining Descriptive and Substantive Representation in Congress.” Political Research Quarterly67:917–29.
68.
WatsonDenton L.1990. Lion in the Lobby: Clarence Mitchell, Jr.’s Struggle for the Passage of Civil Rights Laws. Lanham: University Press Association.
69.
WrightJohn R.1990. “Contributions, Lobbying, and Committee Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives.” American Political Science Review84:417–38.
70.
Zepeda-MillanChris. 2017. Latino Mass Mobilization: Immigra-tion, Racialization, and Activism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
