Credit claiming, where legislators highlight their role in bringing home federal spending projects to their district, has been shown to offer electoral value in an array of studies. However, congressional messaging on distributive politics expands beyond credit claiming. Distributive policy moves in two directions—new spending and budget cuts—leading to more types of messaging than are currently explored. Legislators often claim credit for protecting existing initiatives (protection messages) and speak out against decisions to cut district projects (commiseration messages). We develop a theory of distributive politics that incorporates the full range of congressional messaging on federal spending. Using an online survey experiment, we find that constituents are receptive to protection and commiseration messages. In fact, protection and commiseration messages are no less effective than traditional credit claims and announcement messages, respectively. These findings suggest distributive politics is about more than displaying influence; it provides legislators with a window for recognizing constituent needs, even in the absence of positive policy outcomes.
AlbouyDavid. 2013. “Partisan Representation in Congress and the Geographic Distribution of Federal Funds.” The Review of Economics and Statistics95 (1): 127–41.
2.
ArceneauxKevin. 2012. “Cognitive Biases and the Strength of Political Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science56 (2): 271–85.
3.
ArnoldR. Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. Yale University Press.
4.
AshworthScottMesquitaEthan Bueno de. 2006. “Delivering the Goods: Legislative Particularism in Different Electoral and Institutional Settings.” The Journal of Politics68 (1): 168–79.
5.
BarronNathanMcLaughlinPeter. 2025. “Replication Data for: Beyond Credit Claiming: Protection and Commiseration Messages in Distributive Politics.” https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/1KIG88, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:+jle1/6pZwCoU20fWKVkGA== [fileUNF].
6.
BarronNathan T.McLaughlinPeter T.. 2024. “Experimental Evidence of the Benefits and Risks of Credit Claiming and Pork Busting.” Legislative Studies Quarterly49 (1): 103–29.
BickersKenneth N.SteinRobert M.. 1996. “The Electoral Dynamics of the Federal Pork Barrel.” American Journal of Political Science40: 1300–26.
9.
BraidwoodTravis. 2015. “Desirable Pork: Do Voters Reward for Earmark Acquisition?” Research & Politics2 (4): 2053168015612247.
10.
ButlerDaniel M.HughesAdam G.CraigVoldenWisemanAlan E.. 2023. “Do Constituents Know (or Care) About the Lawmaking Effectiveness of Their Representatives?” Political Science Research and Methods11: 419–28.
11.
CainBruceFerejohnJohnMorrisFiorina. 1987. The Personal Vote. Harvard University Press.
12.
CassellaChrisFaganE. J.TheriaultSean M.. 2023. “Partisan Asymmetries in Earmark Representation.” Political Research Quarterly76 (4): 1794–1804.
13.
CliffordScottSheagleyGeoffreyPistonSpencer. 2021. “Increasing Precision Without Altering Treatment Effects: Repeated Measures Designs in Survey Experiments.” American Political Science Review115 (3): 1048–65.
14.
CoppockAlexanderMcClellanOliver A.. 2019. “Validating the Demographic, Political, Psychological, and Experimental Results Obtained from a New Source of Online Survey Respondents.” Research & Politics6 (1): 2053168018822174.
15.
CurryJames M.DonnellyChristopher P.. 2021. “State Congressional Delegations and the Distribution of Federal Funds.” Political Research Quarterly74 (3): 756–71.
16.
DruckmanJames N.2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)Relevance of Framing Effects.” American Political Science Review98 (4): 671–86.
17.
DruckmanJames N.McDermottRose. 2008. “Emotion and the Framing of Risky Choice.” Political Behavior30: 297–321.
18.
EulauHeinzKarpsPaul D.. 1977. “The Puzzle of Representation: Specifying Components of Responsiveness.” Legislative Studies Quarterly2 (3): 233–54.
19.
EvansDiana. 2004. Greasing the Wheels: Using Pork Barrel Projects to Build Majority Coalitions in Congress. Cambridge University Press.
20.
FennoRichard F.1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.
21.
FerejohnJohn A.1974. Pork Barrel Politics: Rivers and Harbors Legislation, 1947-1968. Stanford University Press.
22.
FriedmanSally. 2007. Dilemmas of Representation. State University of New York Press.
23.
FrischScott A.1998. The Politics of Pork: A Study of Congressional Appropriation Earmarks. Taylor & Francis.
24.
FrischScott A.KellySean Q.. 2015. Cheese Factories on the Moon: Why Earmarks are Good for American Democracy. Routledge.
25.
GerberAlan S.PatashnikEric M.TuckerPatrick D.. 2022. “How Voters Use Contextual Information to Reward and Punish: Credit Claiming, Legislative Performance, and Democratic Accountability.” The Journal of Politics84 (3): 1839–43.
26.
GrimmerJustin. 2013. “Appropriators Not Position Takers: The Distorting Effects of Electoral Incentives on Congressional Representation.” American Journal of Political Science57 (3): 624–42.
27.
GrimmerJustinMessingSolomonWestwoodSean J.. 2012. “How Words and Money Cultivate a Personal Vote: The Effect of Legislator Credit Claiming on Constituent Credit Allocation.” American Political Science Review106 (4): 703–19.
28.
GrimmerJustinWestwoodSean J.MessingSolomon. 2014. The Impression of Influence: Legislator Communication, Representation, and Democratic Accountability. Princeton University Press.
29.
GroseChristian R.2011. Congress in Black and White: Race and Representation in Washington and at Home. Cambridge University Press.
30.
GrossJustin H.2015. “Testing what Matters (If You Must Test at All): A Context-Driven Approach to Substantive and Statistical Significance.” American Journal of Political Science59 (3): 775–88.
31.
HamelBrian T.BauerNichole M.. 2024. “Gender, Issue Stereotypes, and the Electoral Returns to Distributive Politics in the United States.” Politics and Gender20 (4): 858–78.
32.
HartmanErinHidalgoF. Daniel. 2018. “An Equivalence Approach to Balance and Placebo Tests.” American Journal of Political Science62 (4): 1000–13.
33.
HopkinsDaniel J.2018. The Increasingly United States: How and Why American Political Behavior Nationalized. University of Chicago Press.
34.
HuntCharles R.2022a. Home Field Advantage: Roots, Reelection, and Representation in the Modern Congress. University of Michigan Press.
35.
HuntCharles R.2022b. “Won’t You Be My Senator? Nuanced “Friends and Neighbors” Voting in U.S. Senate Elections, 1968-2018.” Electoral Studies80: 102540.
36.
HuntCharles R.MilerKristina C.. 2025. “How Modern Lawmakers Advertise Their Legislative Effectiveness to Constituents.” The Journal of Politics87 (1): 231–45.
37.
HuntCharles R.RouseStella M.. 2024. “Polarization and Place-Based Representation in US State Legislatures.” Legislative Studies Quarterly49 (2): 411–24.
38.
JacobsonGary C.2015. “It’s Nothing Personal: The Decline of the Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections.” The Journal of Politics77 (3): 861–73.
39.
KahnemanDanielTverskyAmos. 1979. “Prospect Theory—Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” Econometrica47: 263–91.
40.
KahnemanDanielTverskyAmos. 1984. “Choices, Values, and Frames.” American Psychologist39 (4): 341–50.
41.
KamCindy D.SimasElizabeth N.. 2010. “Risk Orientations and Policy Frames.” The Journal of Politics72 (2): 381–96.
42.
KaslovskyJaclyn. 2022. “Senators at Home: Local Attentiveness and Policy Representation in Congress.” American Political Science Review116 (2): 645–61.
KaslovskyJaclynStoneAndrew R.. 2025. “Geographic Representation and Requests for Federal Funds in the US Senate.” Legislative Studies Quarterly50 (1): 22–37.
45.
LazarusJeffrey. 2009. “Party, Electoral Vulnerability, and Earmarks in the US House of Representatives.” The Journal of Politics71 (3): 1050–61.
46.
LazarusJeffrey. 2010. “Giving the People What they Want? The Distribution of Earmarks in the US House of Representatives.” American Journal of Political Science54 (2): 338–53.
47.
LazarusJeffreyGlasJeffreyBarbieriKyle T.. 2012. “Earmarks and Elections to the US House of Representatives.” Congress and the Presidency39 (3): 254–69.
48.
LeeFrances E.2003. “Geographic Politics in the US House of Representatives: Coalition Building and Distribution of Benefits.” American Journal of Political Science47 (4): 714–28.
49.
LevittSteven D.SnyderJames M.Jr. 1997. “The Impact of Federal Spending on House Election Outcomes.” Journal of Political Economy105 (1): 30–53.
50.
LipinskiDaniel. 2004. Congressional Communication: Content and Consequences. University of Michigan Press.
51.
MayhewDavid R.1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. Yale University Press.
52.
McLaughlinPeter T.2023. “Institutional Earmarks: the Earmark Moratorium and Federal Highway Spending.” Journal of Public Policy43 (2): 1–17.
53.
McLaughlinPeter T.2024. “More Money, less Credit? Legislator Gender and the Effectiveness of Congressional Credit Claiming.” Politics and Gender20 (2): 346–62.
54.
McLaughlinPeter T.2025. Priority Projects: Constituent Spending Demand and the Benefits of Congressional Credit Claiming. Legislative Studies Quarterly.
55.
McLaughlinPeter T.BarronNathan T.. 2025. “Credible Claims: The Effect of Committee Positioning on Congressional Credit Claiming.” American Politics Research53 (3): 275–86.
56.
MillsRussell W.Kalaf-HughesNicoleMacDonaldJason A.. 2016. “Agency Policy Preferences, Congressional Letter-marking and the Allocation of Distributive Policy Benefits.” Journal of Public Policy36 (4): 547–71.
57.
MunisB. KalBurkeRichard. 2023. “Talk Local to me: Assessing the Heterogenous Effects of Localistic Appeals.” American Politics Research51 (5): 655–69.
58.
NapolioNicholas G.2021. “Implementing Presidential Particularism: Bureaucracy and the Distribution of Federal Grants.” Political Science Research and Methods11 (1): 1–11.
59.
OsmundsenMathiasPetersenMichael Bang. 2020. “Framing Political Risks: Individual Differences and Loss Aversion in Personal and Political Situations.” Political Psychology41 (1): 53–70.
60.
QuattroneGeorge A.TverskyAmos. 1988. “Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice.” American Political Science Review82 (3): 719–36.
61.
RaineyCarlisle. 2014. “Arguing for a Negligible Effect.” American Journal of Political Science58 (4): 1083–91.
62.
RosenstielLeah. 2023. “Congressional Bargaining and the Distribution of Grants.” Legislative Studies Quarterly48 (3): 471–501.
63.
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.
64.
SidmanAndrew H.2019. Pork Barrel Politics: How Government Spending Determines Elections in a Polarized Era. Columbia University Press.
65.
SievertJoelMcKeeSeth C.. 2019. “Nationalization in US Senate and Gubernatorial Elections.” American Politics Research47 (5): 1055–80.
66.
SnyderRochelle. 2024. “The Partisan Vote: Shared Partisanship and Constituent Service in the U.S. Congress.” American Politics Research52 (6): 639–54.
67.
StagnaroMichael N.DruckmanJamesBerinskyAdam J.ArecharAntonio A.WillerRobbRandDavid G.. 2024. “Representativeness and Response Validity Across Nine Opt-in Online Samples.” PsyArXiv; Version 2. 10.31234/osf.io/h9j2d.
68.
SteinRobert M.BickersKenneth N.. 1994. “Congressional Elections and the Pork Barrel.” The Journal of Politics56 (2): 377–99.
69.
StratmannThomas. 2013. “The Effects of Earmarks on the Likelihood of Reelection.” European Journal of Political Economy32: 341–55.
70.
TernovskyJohnOrrLilla. 2022. “A Note on Increases in Inattentive Online Survey-Takers Since 2020.” Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media2: 1–35.
71.
TreulSarahThomsenDanielle M.CraigVoldenWisemanAlan E.. 2022. “The Primary Path for Turning Legislative Effectiveness into Electoral Success.” Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media84 (3): 1714–26.
72.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel. 1991. “Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-dependent Model.” Quarterly Journal of Economics106 (4): 1039–61.
73.
WeingastBarry R.MarshallWilliam J.. 1988. “The Industrial Organization of Congress; Or, Why Legislatures, Like Firms, are Not Organized as Markets.” Journal of Political Economy96 (1): 132–63.
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.
