I'll Be There for You: Parties’ and MCs’ Group Ties as MCs See Them

• In Event: US Parties: Platforms and Positions

Abstract

The relationship between parties and interest groups is much studied. While these two forms of organization were once seen as distinct, in more recent years a view of “policy demanders” (Bawn et al 2012) as central actors in parties has emerged. Yet some lobbies may retain bipartisan support among elected officials. Often scholars assess the relationship between interest groups, parties, and individual elected officials with measures such as campaign contributions or endorsements. Yet these data –useful as they are– cannot illuminate how elected officials perceive either their personal relationships with interest groups or those linking their parties to these groups. Understanding these perceptions is important since scholars have long believed that they motivate and underlie much of the legislative behavior scholars seek to explain.

In this paper we explore these understandings via a unique dataset, the 2023 Former Members of Congress (FMC) Survey. This groundbreaking study, based on over 200 respondents who served in the U.S. House, Senate or both chambers at various points between the 1960s and 2022, allows us to investigate key questions important for students of parties, interest groups, and Congress. Survey respondents were asked to name the two groups that were most important for them personally during their time in Congress and which two were most important for their party more generally. These were open response questions and some MCs named specific organizations while others cited what scholars might term a sector or demographic.

We ask the following basic questions: Which groups do former Members of Congress (MCs) say they and their parties were closest to in office? How much overlap is there between the groups to which MCs expressed personal attachments and those they saw as important for their parties? How do the answers to both questions vary across party and era of service? How closely linked are MC’s responses to their personal backgrounds and the constituencies they represent(ed)?

Answering these questions will allow us to address several issues in the literature. Grossmann and Hopkins (2016) contend that Democrats are more diverse and group-oriented than Republicans. If so, we should expect to see more groups named by Democratic than GOP MCs and a greater divergence between those Democrats report being close to and those they name as important for their party than is the case for Republicans. A perspective that emphasizes polarization and “sorting” (Fiorina, 2017) of groups into parties would also lead us to expect more diverse listing of groups by legislators whose service ended some time ago, with greater intra-party homogeneity and fewer responses common to Democratic and GOP MCs of more recent vintage. Exploration of responses by era served may also illuminate shifts in party coalitions as well as the rise or fall of particular sectors.

An additional line of inquiry we pursue in this study concerns covariates of the groups important to individual MCs. We assess the association between MC-identified groups and the characteristics of MCs’ states, districts, and aspects of their personal background (e.g., profession, race, religious affiliation, sex). We seek to learn whether any observed association between characteristics of MCs (or their constituents) on one hand and group ties on the other declines as partisan polarization increases, and whether such dynamics vary by party. The explorations undertaken in this paper will provide the basis for future study linking MCs’ reports of closeness to groups with their behavior in office.



Bawn, Kathleen, Martin Cohen, David Karol, Seth Masket, Hans Noel and John Zaller. 2012. “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics. Vol. 10 No. 3: 571-597.

Fiorina, Morris P. 2017. Unstable Majorities: Polarization, Party Sorting and Political Stalemate: Palo Alto: Hoover Institution Press.

Grossmann, Matt and David A. Hopkins. 2016 Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. New York: Oxford University Press.

Authors

• David Karol, University of Maryland

• Alexander George Theodoridis, University of Massachusetts Amherst

• Justin H. Gross, University of Massachusetts, Amherst