How does one measure influence and the effectiveness of
legislators? This is not a trivial question, as voters have to make sense of
competing claims during election years when deciding whether to return an incumbent
for another two or six year term. Of course, incumbents seek to inflate their
importance and influence, while their opponents attempt the opposite. Justin Grimmer wrote a
fascinating account of how legislators attempt to puff up their credentials in
press releases, claiming credit for government spending and appropriations
which are routine--the legislator likely had little role in procuring.
I am drawn again to the topic of legislative
effectiveness and influence by a recent
post by Don Pogreba at his new website, The Montana Post. Pogreba contrasts
the legislative accomplishments of Senator Tester with those of Senator Daines,
suggesting that Tester is far more accomplished than Daines—inferring that
Daines has little influence in Washington and does nothing of substance in the
U.S. Senate.
Unfortunately, I thought the piece trivializes an
important issue to sell a partisan point. Both parties are guilty of
simplifying this issue to create a narrative useful to them. Let’s elevate the
conversation, and see what political science can offer. Who is more effective:
Daines or Tester?
I addressed the issue of influence and effectiveness
in Battle for the Big Sky, as a key
argument Team Tester made about Congressman Rehberg was that he had
accomplished little of substance during his decade plus in the House of
Representatives. I wrote this in evaluating the effectiveness of Tester and
Rehberg as lawmakers:
“On average, House members passed less than one bill in the
109th through the 111th Congresses
that became law, according to data compiled by the Congressional Bills Project. In the Senate, it isn’t much
better: Senators passed fewer than two bills on average that were signed by the president over the same
period.17 Of
the 42 bills and resolutions sponsored by
Tester during his first four years in office, two passed. Rehberg passed seven of the 82 bills and
resolutions he introduced between 2001 and 2010.18 In neither case do Rehberg nor Tester
stand out as successful legislators, but their efforts are less reflective of their individual
abilities than they are of governing in an era of polarization and divided government. Senior members of
both chambers tend to be more successful
because they often have committee chairmanships that provide them with the opportunity and responsibility to
advance legislation central to their party’s legislative agendas.”
A couple of points are important.
First, it’s really hard to pass a bill. Second, it’s really hard for House
members to be effective in sponsoring bills—but it is “relatively” easier for
Senators to get their legislation made into law. Third, appropriators don’t
often sponsor bills and exert influence through earmarks instead. Finally,
seniority matters: Freshmen simply don’t pass bills they sponsor in either
chamber often.
Let’s compare apples to apples. In
2007, Senator Tester was a part of the new Democratic majority. According to
GovTrack, the same source Pogrebra uses to assess Senator Daines’ performance,
Senator Tester did not have a bill sponsored by him (not counting co-sponsored
bills) pass that year. In 2015, Senator Daines was also in his first year in
the Senate as part of a new Republican majority. And, no surprise, he did not
have a single bill sponsored by him become law.
But sponsoring bills is only one way
to think about legislative effectiveness. Indeed, it is a measure that is not
terribly useful when looking at freshmen legislators. I noted in Battle for the Big Sky that the Senate
gives far more opportunities for senators to participate directly in the
legislative process through floor amendments. This is the similar tactic that
my Georgia State colleague, Jeff Lazarus, employed to compare the legislative
effectiveness of Senators Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Read the piece here;
Lazarus concluded that Clinton was the far more effective legislator, owing in
part to the support she marshalled for her amendments.
Tester effectively used amendments to
advance his legislative priorities, particularly for a freshman Senator in the
majority. While he ranked second to last among his class in the passage of
sponsored bills (in the first four years of his first term), he was the second
most successful Senate amender among the cohort elected in 2006. Of the 38
amendments he sponsored, eleven were adopted on the floor. Again, this data is
from my book.
Senator Daines, in the 114th
Congress, sponsored 55 floor amendments (Data for this analysis was obtained
from Congress.gov). Only five were adopted by the chamber—for a success rate of
nine percent. How does that rank among Republican freshmen?
Eleven Republican freshmen were elected
in 2014. Six had higher amendment passage rates than Daines, five had lower
success rates. Senators Rounds and Sullivan had 32 percent of their amendments
agreed to (about Tester’s success rate), but both sponsored fewer amendments
(19 and 41 respectively). At the bottom end of the scale, Oklahoma Senator
James Lankford sponsored 34 amendments and had only one receive Senate assent
(for a passage rate of 3 percent). Among freshmen, Daines also sponsored the
most amendments—eight more than Colorado Senator Corey Gardner (17 percent
success rate).
Legislative effectiveness is tricky
to measure and must be placed both in career and institutional context. Daines’
inability to pass legislation sponsored by him should not surprise given his
relative junior status—and Tester found himself in precisely the same boat when
he arrived in Washington. Looking at amendments, Daines is less effective than
Tester was early in his career. Tester’s experience as a successful legislator
in the Montana Senate has carried over to the U.S. Senate. Daines, whose
experience was in the private sector and not in politics prior to arriving on
Capitol Hill, likely has had a steep learning curve when it comes to legislative
maneuvering on the Senate floor.
One final and related point:
political scientists have long argued that term limits are bad for
legislatures. As David Mayhew notes in America’s
Congress, some of the country’s most important, historic legislative
measures were drafted and passed by members of Congress late in their careers.
As the above analysis and discussion demonstrates, passing laws is the business
of seasoned legislators and not those new to Capitol Hill. It is also not a
particularly useful way to measure whether a legislator is effective or not
earlier in their careers—especially not in isolation. There are also other ways
to think about legislative effectiveness, including casework and pork brought
back home. Both of these are hard to measure, and in the case of pork, ever
more difficult to obtain given the recent ban on earmarks. Legislative
effectiveness is multi-faceted and needs to be placed into comparative
contexts.
