Does the Roll Call Voting Record of Congressional Members Adequately Capture the Level of Interest Group Influence on Member’s Behaviors?
Introduction
Scholars have had hard moments determining the influence of campaign donations on elected legislators some studies finding significant prove while others find no prove at all. However, reports from different institutions show that moneyed interests play a significant role in the legislative process in Congress. Confusion occurs because Congress members dismiss the issue claiming it political and far away from the truth. The question remains whether the roll call voting record of congressional members adequately captures the level of interest group influence on members’ behavior? To effectively answer the above question and establish the above claim is true of not, a member-donor relationship, questioning the theoretical underpinning of the vote-buying hypotheses by Hall and Wayman will be utilized. Hall and Wayman suggested that in case of a vote buying process, members’ behavior is more likely to reveal in the committee as opposed to the floor. On the other hand, in case the assertion is not true, members’ legislation involvement behavior is affected.
Thesis Statement: Roll call voting record of congressional members adequately captures the level of interest group influence on members’ behavior.
The U.S. House of Representatives has its standing committee representatives voted by the full chamber. Sources of committee members’ success is unknown because it creates a state of confusion realizing that a member gathers majority votes from the Congress. The behavior of committee members on the floor determines their ability to succeed determined by recommendations from the Congress support committee. Past studies indicated that members acquire power from the committee system, making it impossible to question recommendations of the Congress. Other explanations base their reasons on policies governing the House and members of the committee. The investigation conducted by Hall and Wayman showed that the money raised by Political Action Committee (PAC) is disbursed with local congressional elections and not to authorized legislative ends. The argument above reveals that PAC encourages local officials to raise funds in the House intended for other purposes such as increasing net political benefits associated with roll call voting record.
Many studies conducted in line with the above issue focus on the influence of donations made by the PAC on the floor votes of members of Congress. The U.S. political environment is very competitive and leaders look for all means possible to make them secure a political post in the Congress. Despite many studies to investigate the reality of vote buying in the Congress, many researches find no significant link between policy outcomes and contributions. Additionally, the growing public concern about PAC does not give an insight on the influence of political money in legislative decision making. To prove changes in behavior of Congress members during the voting process, Hall and Wayman looked at the effects of money in Congress. Most Congress members are more concerned about the politics of the committee decision making compared to the floor decision making. PAC makes contributions to Congress members to influence their behaviors in addition to other monetary ways used to influence member outcomes. On the other hand, individual members use money to influence others on the floor towards voting for a specific member.
A review of the sources of committee support forms the third factor that proves the assertion that the congressional members influence members’ behavior on the floor during the voting process. The position of the member in the committee system influences their voting behavior while on the floor of the House. The committee system supports a certain policy outcome and the Congress must ensure policy recommendations are adhered. Hall and Wayman’s second hypotheses find use in the following argument. The two authors hypothesized that vote-buying process is likely to influence members’ legislative involvement and not their votes. Members become more attached to the committee system and forget the power of roll call voting record that votes in new members of to the House. U.S. has a very strong political culture that creates values and beliefs for citizens towards political systems and towards citizens themselves. The sovereign power of the American political system cannot be overturned by any person or institution regardless of their position in the Congress.
The role of bureaucracy also plays a significant part in influencing the behaviors of congressional members in the House floor. The government respects bureaucracy because it enables effective interaction between the government and the people in administration and legislation. Bearing in mind the current political systems practiced in U.S., bureaucracy influence are both real and imagined. The decision –making process by elected representatives are undermined by the relationship that exists between the government and bureaucracy. Congressional members have the freedom of choosing members they desire in the floor of the house because they influence behaviors of Congressional members. The presence of bureaucrats in the Congress who make policies that favor personal interests makes vote-buying a common phenomenon in the House. PAC acts as a gateway for such members to influence other Congress members through donations made in the floor of the House. According to Hall and Wayman, the level of contribution received by each member from PACs interested in different positions in the floor shows that money affects members’ voting behavior.
The majority party influences committee support and behavior during Congressional members’ voting process. In most cases, the majority party has dominance over the House portraying the committee system as an instrument of the majority party. Members of the majority party have the biggest say when it comes to decision-making. Additionally, House committee makes proposals based on the recommendations of the majority party members. In order to achieve equal competitive advantage, members of the minority party engage in moneyed interests whereby they buy votes from congress members. The implication that moneyed interests affect the decision-making process of the Congress is true. The legislative behavior portrayed by members of the minority party in the House determines the overall outcome of the voting process.
On the other hand, the American political system reveals different ways citizens express their democratic rights. The country focuses mostly on voting, but it is not the most effective method of political participation. Congressional members have the power of influencing members of the house because they have less number of sittings and their decisions are much acceptable. Members are more likely to behave in accordance to Congress recommendations and ignore the power of the vote in the floor of the House. Additionally, members seeking various positions meet outside the house and mobilize other members into voting for specific candidates in return of some moneyed interests. The model of participation utilized by Hall and Wayman reveals that PAC contributes to behaviors of Members of the Congress. Congress Members allocate different legislative resources in a manner to advance personal goals and interests. One the most common goal is reelection. Congressional members must capture the attention of interest groups using unconstitutional ways in order to be re-elected into the Congress.
Conclusion
The argument proves that roll call voting record of congressional members adequately captures the level of interest group influence on members’ behavior. Congressional committee ensures recommendations given in the floor of the House favor their re-election. In collaboration with PAC, the Congress manages to capture interests of many members by distributing resources in monetary form in order to gain favor during the election process. The decision-making process of the House members influences their behaviors in the floor of the House. Moneyed interests acts as a form of mobilizing members during the roll call voting record.
Bibliography
Coleman, John J., Goldstein, Kenneth M., and Howell, William G. 2012. Understanding
American Politics and Government: Brief Edition (3rd Ed.). (New York: Longman, 2012).
Hall, L. Richard, and Wayman, W. Frank, “Buying time: Moneyed interests and the mobilization
of bias on the congressional committees.” The American Political Science Review, 84,3 (1990): 797-820.
