A range of research shows that distributive spending is allocated disproportionately to members in positions of power or who contribute to collective efforts. In this article, I ask whether House members who participate in their party caucus’ internal organizations enjoy earmarking advantages either as a direct benefit or by avoiding earmarking losses that are usually associated with declining electoral vulnerability. Adding new data on party involvement to several earmarking data sets, I find mixed evidence. Democratic party participants enjoyed somewhat better outcomes in the 1990s, but this result does not hold in other contexts. Evidence from the traditional pork barrel area of transportation earmarks supports the expectation that the electoral vulnerability effect is confined to nonparticipants, but this pattern does not appear for Appropriations earmarks in the 2000s. The results suggest that contributions to party goals can relate to distributive outcomes but that the effects vary by issue and party context.
BallaS. J.LawrenceE. D.MaltzmanF.SigelmanL. (2002). Partisanship, blame avoidance, and the distribution of legislative pork. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 515-525.
4.
BerryC. R.BurdenB. C.HowellW. G. (2010). The president and the distribution of federal spending. American Political Science Review, 104, 783-799.
5.
BerryC. R.FowlerA. (2016). Cardinals or clerics? Congressional committees and the distribution of pork. American Journal of Political Science, 60, 692-708.
6.
BickersK. N.SteinR. M. (1996). The electoral dynamics of the federal pork barrel. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 1300-1326.
7.
BickersK. N.SteinR. M. (2000). The congressional pork barrel in a Republican era. Journal of Politics, 62, 1070-1086.
8.
CannD. M.SidmanA. H. (2011). Exchange theory, political parties, and the allocation of federal distributive benefits in the House of Representatives. Journal of Politics, 73, 1128-1141.
9.
CarrollR.KimH. A. (2010). Party government and the “cohesive power of public plunder.”American Journal of Political Science, 54, 34-44.
10.
CarseyT. M.RundquistB. (1999). Party and committee in distributive politics: Evidence from defense spending. Journal of Politics, 61, 1156-1169.
11.
ClemensA.CrespinM.FinocchiaroC. J. (2015). Earmarks and subcommittee government in the U.S. Congress. American Politics Research, 43, 1074-1106.
CoxG. W.McCubbinsM. D. (2007). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the house (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
CrespinM.FinocchiaroC. J. (2008). Distributive and partisan politics in the U.S. Senate: An exploration of earmarks. In MonroeN. W.RobertsJ. M.RohdeD. W. (Eds.), Why not parties: Party effects in the U.S. Senate (pp. 229-251). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
EngstromE. J.VanbergG. (2010). Assessing the allocation of pork: Evidence from congressional earmarks. American Politics Research, 38, 959-985.
16.
EvansC. L.GrandyC. E. (2009). The whip systems of Congress. In DoddL. C.OppenheimerB. I. (Eds.), Congress reconsidered (pp. 189-215). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
17.
EvansD. (2004). Greasing the wheels: Using pork barrel projects to build majority coalitions in Congress. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
EvansD. (2011). Pork barrel politics. In SchicklerE.LeeF. E. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the American Congress (pp. 315-399). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
FennoR. F.Jr. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
20.
FrischS. A.KellyS. Q. (2011). Cheese factories on the moon: Why earmarks are good for American democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
GrimmerJ.WestwoodS. J.MessingS. (2015). The impression of influence: Legislator communication, representation, and democratic accountability. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
HaseckeE. B.MycoffJ. D. (2007). Party loyalty and legislative success: Are loyal majority party members more successful in the U.S. House of Representatives?Political Research Quarterly, 60, 607-617.
24.
HeberligE. S. (2003). Congressional parties, fundraising, and committee ambition. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 151-161.
25.
HeberligE. S.LarsonB. A. (2007). Party fundraising, descriptive representation, and the battle for majority control: Shifting leadership appointment strategies in the US House: 1990-2002. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 404-421.
26.
HeberligE. S.LarsonB. A. (2012). Congressional parties, institutional ambition, and the financing of majority control. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
27.
KolodnyR. (1998). Pursuing majorities: congressional campaign committees in American politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
28.
LazarusJ. (2009). Party, electoral vulnerability, and earmarks in the US House of Representatives. Journal of Politics, 71, 1050-1061.
29.
LazarusJ. (2010). Giving the people what they want? The distribution of earmarks in the U.S. House of Representatives. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 338-353.
30.
LazarusJ.GlasJ.BarbieriK. T. (2012). Earmarks and elections to the U.S. House of Representatives. Congress and the Presidency, 39, 254-269.
31.
LazarusJ.ReillyS. (2010). The electoral benefits of distributive spending. Political Research Quarterly, 63, 343-355.
32.
LazarusJ.SteigerwaltA. (2009). Different houses: The distribution of earmarks in the U.S. House and Senate. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34, 347-373.
33.
LeeF. E. (2003). Geographic politics in the US House of Representatives: Coalition building and distribution of benefits. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 714-728.
34.
MaltzmanF. (1997). Competing principals: Committees, parties, and the organization of Congress. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
35.
MayhewD. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
36.
MeinkeS. R. (2016). Leadership organizations in the House of Representatives: Party participation and partisan politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
37.
PearsonK. (2015). Party discipline in the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
38.
PriceD. E. (Ed.). (2004). The congressional experience. Cambridge, MA: Westview.
39.
RichM. J. (1989). Distributive politics and the allocation of federal grants. American Political Science Review, 83, 193-213.
40.
SellersP. J. (1997). Fiscal consistency and federal district spending in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 1024-1041.
41.
SinclairB. (1995). Legislators, leaders, and lawmaking: The U.S. House of Representatives in the postreform era. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
42.
SulkinT. (2005). Issue politics in congress. Cambridge, UK: 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.
