In the US House, the Suspension of the Rules procedure provides a route by which vote buying may occur. To investigate the conditions under which partisan theories anticipate that this behavior is more likely to happen, I use a dataset of all bills on which a final passage vote was taken in the House between 1975 and 2010. The House is more likely to consider bills by suspension to provide side payments to three types of bill sponsors from the majority party: ideologically distant members of this group; members whose preferences are located within the first 30% of the space in the majority party blockout zone; and members whose preferences are located on the minority party side of the chamber median.
AldrichJ (1995) Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AldrichJRohdeD (2000) The Republican revolution and the House Appropriations Committee. The Journal of Politics62(1): 643–670.
3.
BachS (1990) Suspension of the rules, the order of business and the development of Congressional procedure. Legislative Studies Quarterly15(1): 49–63.
4.
BinderS (1999) The dynamics of legislative gridlock, 1947-96. American Political Science Review96(3): 519–533.
5.
BinderSLawrenceEMaltzmanF (1999) Uncovering the hidden effect of party. The Journal of Politics61(3): 815–831.
6.
CannD (2008) Sharing the Wealth: Member Contributions and the Exchange theory of Party Influence in the U.S. House of Representatives. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
7.
CarrT (2005) Suspension of the rules in the House of Representatives. Typescript, Congressional Research Service. Library of Congress.
8.
CarrollRKimH (2010) Party government and the ‘cohesive power of public plunder’. American Journal of Political Science54(1): 34–44.
9.
CarsonJMonroeNRobinsonG (2011) Unpacking agenda control in congress: Individual roll rates and the republican revolution. Political Research Quarterly64(1): 17–30.
10.
ChappieD (2003) House caught in a state of suspension; Study funds use of tactic intended for noncontroversial measures is soaring. Roll Call, 27 January, 1–3.
11.
CloggCPetkovaEHaritouA (1995) Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology100(5): 1261–1293.
12.
CooperJYoungC (1989) Bill introduction in the nineteenth century: A study of institutional change. Legislative Studies Quarterly14(1): 67–105.
13.
CoxGHellerWMcCubbinsM (2008) Agenda power in the Italian Chamber of Deputies. Legislative Studies Quarterly33(2): 171–198.
14.
CoxGMasuyamaMMcCubbinsM (2000) Agenda power in the Japanese House of Representatives. Japanese Journal of Political Science1(1): 1–21.
15.
CoxGMcCubbinsM (1993) Legislative leviathan: Party government in the House. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
16.
CoxGMcCubbinsM (2005) Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
DavidsonROleszekW (1999) Congress and its Members. 7th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
18.
DoddL (1983) Coalition-building by party leaders: A case study of house democrats. Congress and the Presidency1(2): 147–168.
19.
EricsonM (2005) A winding legal road: Major events in the court battle between Terri Schiavo’s Husband, Michael, and her Parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, The New York Times, 26 March. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com (accessed 26 March 2005).
20.
EvansD (2004) Greasing the wheels: Using Pork Barrel Projects to Build Majority Coalitions in Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
FinocchiaroCRohdeD (2008) War on the floor: Partisan theory and agenda control in the U.S. House of Representatives. Legislative Studies Quarterly33(1): 35–61.
22.
GoodnoughA (2005) Behind life-and death fight, a rift that began years ago. The New York Times, 26 March, A1.
23.
GrosecloseTSnyderJ (1996) Buying supermajorities. American Political Science Review90(2): 303–315.
24.
HulseCKirkpatrickD (2005) Congress passes and President Bush signs legislation on Schiavo case. The New York Times, 21 March, A1.
25.
JenkinsJMonroeN (2012) Buying negative agenda control in the U.S. House. American Journal of Political Science56(4): 897–912.
26.
JenkinsJNokkenT (2010) Presidential vote buying in Congress. Typescript, The University of Virginia and Texas Tech University.
27.
KanthakK (2004) Exclusive Committee assignments and party pressure in the U.S. House of Representatives. Public Choice121(3-4): 391–412.
KingGTomzMWittenbergJ (2000) Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. The American Journal of Political Science44(2): 341–355.
30.
KrehbielK (1998) Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31.
KrutzGCullisonC (2008) Multiple referral and U.S. House legislative success in the 1990s. American Review of Politics29(1): 65–82.
32.
LawrenceEMaltzmanFSmithS (2006) Who wins? Party effects in legislative voting. Legislative Studies Quarterly21(1): 33–69.
33.
Library of Congress (2013) THOMAS: U.S. Congress on the Internet. Available at: http://thomas.loc.gov (accessed on various dates).
34.
MarshallB (2002). Explaining the role of restrictive rules in the Postreform House. Legislative Studies Quarterly27(1): 61–85.
35.
MayhewD (2005) Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking and Investigations, 1946-2002. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
36.
MinozziWVoldenC (2013) Who heeds the call of the party in congress?The Journal of Politics75(3): 787–802.
37.
OleszekW (1996) Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
38.
PiersonP (2000) Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. The American Political Science Review94(2): 251–267.
39.
PooleKRosenthalH (2000) Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
RobertsJ (2005) Minority rights and majority power: Conditional party government and the motion to recommit in the house, 1909-2000. Legislative Studies Quarterly30(2): 219–234.
41.
RobertsJSmithS (2003) Procedural contexts, party strategy, and conditional party voting in the U.S. House of Representatives. American Journal of Political Science47(2): 305–317.
42.
RohdeD (1991) Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
43.
SinclairB (2007) Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
44.
United States Congress House of Representatives (1977, 1979) House of Representatives Journal for the 94th and 95th Congresses. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
45.
United States Congress House of Representatives Committee on Rules (1977, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011) Final Legislative Calendar, House Committee on Rules, 94th through 109th Congresses. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
46.
WisemanA (2004) Tests of vote-buyer theories of coalition formation in legislatures. Political Research Quarterly57(3): 441–450.
47.
WolfensbergerD (2002) Suspended partisanship in the House: How most laws are really made. In: annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Massachusetts.
48.
YoungGWilkinsV (2007) Vote switchers and party influence in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly32(1): 59–78.
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.
