We investigate the influence of partisanship on congressional communication by analyzing 180,000 press releases issued by members of Congress (MCs) between 2005 and 2019. Specifically, we examine whether partisan factors such as party control of the White House and/or Congress influence the tone used by MCs and whether MCs are more likely to focus on issues that their respective party owns. Our analyses include the use of multiple OLS models, the machine learning approach gradient boosting, and Grimmer’s topical modeling software “expAgenda.” We find that (1) partisanship influences the tone MCs use when communicating online; and (2) MCs are unable to prioritize discussing issues that their respective party own but devote slightly greater attention to their party’s issues than MCs from the opposite party. Our study ultimately finds strong evidence of partisan influence in the way MCs design their press releases and has important implications for online congressional communication.
AdlerE. S.GentC. E.OvermeyerC. B. (1998). The home style homepage: Legislator use of the world wide web for constituency contact. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 23(4): 585–595.
2.
AnsolabehereS.BehrR.IyengarS. (1993). Media game: American politics in the television age. Macmillan.
3.
AnsolabehereS.IyengarS. (1994). Riding the wave and claiming ownership over issues: The joint effects of advertising and news coverage in campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58(3), 335–357.
4.
BaumM. A.GroelingT. (2009). Shot by the messenger: Partisan cues and public opinion regarding national security and war. Political Behavior, 31(2), 157–186.
5.
BimberB. (1999). The internet and citizen communication with government: Does the medium matter?Political communication, 16(4), 409–428.
6.
BondJ. R.FleisherR. (1990). The President in the legislative arena. University of Chicago Press.
7.
BrunkenB. L. (2006). Hurricane Katrina: A content analysis of media framing, attribute agenda setting, and tone of government response. LSU Master’s Theses, 1502.
8.
CallaghanK.SchnellF. (2005). Framing American politics. University of Pittsburgh Press.
9.
CampbellJ. E. (2015). The presidential pulse of congressional elections. University Press of Kentucky.
10.
CarterM. (1999). Speaking up in the Internet age: Use and value of constituent e-mail and congressional web-sites. Parliamentary Affairs, 52(3), 464–479.
11.
CohenG. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822.
12.
CookT. E. (1989). Making laws and making news: Media strategies in the U.S. house of representatives. The Brookings Institution.
13.
DavisR. (1999). The web of politics: The Internet’s impact on the American political system. Oxford University Press.
14.
DamoreD.F. (2004). The dynamics of issue ownership in presidential campaigns. Political Research Quarterly, 57(3), 391–397.
15.
D’AngeloP.KuypersJ. A. (Eds.). (2010). Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives. Routledge.
16.
DruckmanJ. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political behavior, 23(3), 225–256.
17.
DruckmanJ. N.HennessyC. L.KiferM. J.ParkinM. (2010). Issue engagement on congressional candidate web sites, 2002–2006. Social Science Computer Review, 28(1), 3–23.
18.
DulioD. A.TrumboreP. F. (2009). Running on Iraq or running from Iraq? Conditional issue ownership in the 2006 midterm elections. Political Research Quarterly, 62(2): 230–243.
19.
EsterlingK. M.LazerD. M.NebloM. A. (2013). Connecting to constituents: The diffusion of representation practices among congressional websites. Political Research Quarterly, 66(1), 102–114.
20.
FennoR. F. (1982). The United States senate: A bicameral perspective (Vol. 362). AEI Press.
FitchB.GoldschmidtK.FultonE.GriffinN. (2005). Communicating with congress: How Capitol Hill is coping with the surge in citizen advocacy. Congressional Management Foundation.
23.
GolbeckJ.GrimesJ. M.RogersA. (2010). Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1612–1621.
24.
GrimmerJ. (2010). A Bayesian hierarchical topic model for political texts: Measuring expressed agendas in Senate press releases. Political Analysis, 18(1), 1–35.
25.
GrimmerJ.MessingS.WestwoodS. J. (2012). How words and money cultivate a personal vote: The effect of legislator credit claiming on constituent credit allocation. American Political Science Review, 106(4), 703–719.
26.
GrimmerJ. (2013). Representational style in Congress: What legislators say and why it matters. Cambridge University Press.
27.
GrimmerJ.StewartB. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political analysis, 21(3), 267–297.
28.
GroelingT. (2010). When politicians attack: Party cohesion in the media. Cambridge University Press.
29.
GuntherA. C. (1998). The persuasive press inference: Effects of mass media on perceived public opinion. Communication Research, 25(5), 486–504.
30.
HesterJ. B.GibsonR. (2003). The economy and second-level agenda setting: A time-series analysis of economic news and public opinion about the economy. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(1), 73–90.
31.
HetheringtonM. J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. American Political Science Review, 92(4), 791–808.
32.
JacobsL. R.ShapiroR. Y. (2000). Politicians don’t pander: Political manipulation and the loss of democratic responsiveness. University of Chicago Press.
33.
JacobsonG. C. (2017). The electoral connection, then and now. In GerberA.S.SchicklerE. (Eds.), Governing in a polarized age: Elections, parties, and political representation in America (pp. 35–64). Cambridge University Press.
34.
JohnsonD. W. (2013). Congress online: Bridging the gap between citizens and their representatives. Routledge.
35.
JonesD. R.McDermottM. L. (2004). The responsible party government model in house and senate elections. American Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 1–12.
36.
KrosnickJ. A.KinderD. R. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 497–512.
37.
LeeF. E. (2017). Legislative parties in an era of alternating majorities. In GerberA.S.SchicklerE. (Eds.), Governing in a polarized age: Elections, parties, and political representation in America (pp. 115–142). Cambridge University Press.
38.
LeeF. E.OppenheimerB. I. (1999). Sizing up the Senate: The unequal consequences of equal representation. University of Chicago Press.
39.
LipinskiD. (2004). Congressional communication: Content and consequences. University of Michigan Press.
40.
LipinskiD.NeddenriepG. (2004). Using “new” media to get “old” media coverage: How members of congress utilize their web sites to court journalists. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 9(1), 7–21.
41.
LupiaA.PhilpotT. S. (2005). Views from inside the net: How websites affect young adults’ political interest. The Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1122–1142.
42.
MalechaG. L.ReaganD. J. (2012). The public Congress: Congressional deliberation in a new media age. Routledge.
43.
MayhewD. R. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection (Vol. 26). Yale University Press.
44.
McCombsM. E.ShawD. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public opinion quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.
45.
McGrawK. M.LingC. (2003). Media priming of presidential and group evaluations. Political Communication, 20(1), 23–40.
46.
MillerR. E.WantaW. (1996). Sources of the public agenda: The president-press-public relationship. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8(4), 390–402.
NicholsonS. P.SeguraG. M. (1999). Midterm elections and divided government: An information-driven theory of electoral volatility. Political Research Quarterly, 52(3), 608–629.
49.
NorpothH. (2001). Divided government and economic voting. The Journal of Politics. 63(2):414–435.
50.
OleszekW. J. (2007). Congress and the internet: Highlights. Congressional Research Service.
51.
OstromC. W.SimonD. M. (1985). Promise and performance: A dynamic model of presidential popularity. American Political Science Review, 79(2), 334–358.
52.
OwenD.DavisR.StricklerV. J. (1999). Congress and the internet. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 4(2), 10–29.
53.
PageB. I.ShapiroR. Y.DempseyG. R. (1987). What moves public opinion?American Political Science Review, 81(1), 23–43.
PetrocikJ. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825–850.
56.
ReeseS. D.Gandy JrO. H.GrantA. E. (Eds.). (2001). Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Routledge.
57.
ReevesA.RogowskiJ. C. (2015). Public opinion toward presidential power. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 45(4), 742–759.
58.
SchaffnerB. F.SellersP. J. (Eds.). (2010). Winning with words: The origins and impact of political framing. Routledge.
59.
SellersP. (2010). Cycles of spin: Strategic communication in the U.S. Congress. Cambridge University Press.
60.
SidesJ. (2007). The consequences of campaign agendas. American Politics Research, 35(4): 465–488.
61.
SimonA. F. (2002). The winning message: Candidate behavior, campaign discourse, and democracy. Cambridge University Press.
62.
SmithS. S. (2007). Party influence in congress. Cambridge University Press.
63.
SocherR.BauerJ.ManningC. D.NgA. Y. (2013). Parsing with compositional vector grammars. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) (pp. 455–465).
64.
SpiliotesC. J.VavreckL. (2002). Campaign advertising: Partisan convergence or divergence?The Journal of Politics, 64(1), 249–261.
TheDemocrats. (2017, July18). Repealing the ACA with no replacement isn’t only a broken promise—it’s dangerous. Repeal would leave millions without the care they need. [Twitter Post]. https://twitter.com/TheDemocrats/status/887390765864767489
67.
TheriaultS. M. (2008). Party polarization in congress. Cambridge University Press.
68.
VoldenC.WisemanA. E. (2014). Legislative effectiveness in the United States congress: The lawmakers. Cambridge University Press.
69.
XenosM. A.FootK. A. (2005). Politics as usual, or politics unusual? Position taking and dialogue on campaign websites in the 2002 U.S. elections. Journal of Communication, 55(1), 169–185.
70.
YiannakisD. E. (1982). House members’ communication Styles: Newsletters and press releases. The Journal of Politics, 44(4), 1049–1071.
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.
