The popularity of congressional caucuses is puzzling, given the dominance of political parties and rules that specifically limit caucuses’ resources. Yet modern caucuses offer legislators the unique advantage of complete discretion over their membership decisions, which allows legislators to tailor their memberships to their district. As a result, caucus membership is an important means of constituency representation. Using original data from the 108th Congress, this article examines the House caucus system and legislators’ membership in all 441caucuses. There is strong evidence that legislators’ decisions about caucus membership reflect their constituents even when controlling for party, committee, electoral security, and seniority. Legislators from heterogeneous districts belong to numerous caucuses, which allows them to represent the multiple interests in their constituency. In addition, legislators are more likely to belong to caucuses that address specific issues relevant to constituents.
Adler, E.S., & Lapinski, J. ( 1997). Demand-side theory and congressional committee composition: A constituency characteristics approach. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 895-918.
2.
Ainsworth, S.H., & Akins, F. ( 1997). The informational role of caucuses in the U.S. Congress. American Political Quarterly, 25, 407-430.
3.
Ainsworth, S.H., & Hall, T.E. ( 2000, April). Participation and coordination: Committees, caucuses, and leadership systems in the 103rd Congress. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Meeting, Chicago, IL.
4.
Arnold, R.D. ( 1990). The logic of congressional action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5.
Bailey, M., & Brady, D. ( 1998). Heterogeneity and representation: The Senate and free trade. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 524-544.
6.
Bianco, W. ( 1997). Reliable source or usual suspects: Cue-taking, information transmission, and legislative committees. Journal of Politics , 59, 913-924.
7.
Binder, S.A. ( 1997). Minority rights, majority rule: Partisanship and the development of Congress. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Bond, J. ( 1983). The influence of constituency diversity on electoral competition in voting for Congress, 1974-1978. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 8, 201-217.
9.
Burgin, E. ( 2003). Congress, health care, and congressional caucuses: An examination of the Diabetes Caucus. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, 28, 789-820.
10.
Canon, D.T. ( 1995). Redistricting and the Congressional Black Caucus. American Politics Quarterly, 23(2): 159-189.
11.
Cox, G.W., & McCubbins, M. ( 1993). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the House . Berkeley: University of California Press.
12.
Cox, G.W., & McCubbins, M. ( 2005). Setting the agenda. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Fenno, R. ( 1973). Congressmen in committees. Boston, MA: Little and Brown.
14.
Fenno, R. ( 1978). Home Style: House Members in their Districts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
15.
Gerber, E., & Lewis, J. ( 2004). Beyond the median: Voter preferences, district heterogeneity, and representation. Journal of Political Economy, 106, 1364-1383.
16.
Goff, B., & Grier, K. ( 1993). On the (mis)measurement of ideology and legislator shirking . Public Choice, 76(1-2), 5-20.
17.
Gronke, P. ( 2000). The electorate, the campaign, and the office: A unified approach to Senate and House elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
18.
Hammond, S.W. ( 1998). Congressional caucuses in national policy making. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
19.
Hammond, S.W., Mulhollan, D.P., & Stevens, A.G., Jr. (1985). Informal congressional caucuses and agenda setting. Western Political Quarterly, 38, 583-605.
20.
Jones, C.E. ( 1987). Testing a legislative strategy: The congressional Black caucus’s action-alert communications network. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 12, 521-536.
21.
Kalt, J., & Zupan, M. ( 1990). Capture and ideology in the economic theory of politics . American Economic Review, 74, 279-300.
22.
Koetzle, W. ( 1998). The impact of constituency diversity upon the competitiveness of U.S. House of Representatives elections, 1962-1996. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 23, 561-574.
23.
Krehbiel, K. ( 1991). Information and legislative organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
24.
Lee, F. ( 2004). Bicameral institutions and geographic politics: Allocating federal funds for transportation in the House and Senate. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29, 185-213.
25.
Mayhew, D.R. ( 1974). Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
26.
McCarty, N., Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. ( 2009). Does gerrymandering cause polarization? American Journal of Political Science, 53, 666-680.
27.
McCormick, J.M., & Mitchell, N.J. (2007). Commitments, transnational interests, and Congress: Who joins the congressional human rights caucus?Political Research Quarterly, 60, 579-592.
28.
Pearson, K. ( 2001, March). Strength in numbers? Assessing congressional caucuses under Republican control. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Western Political Science Association, Las Vegas, NV.
29.
Pinney, N., & Serra, G. ( 1999). The congressional Black caucus and vote cohesion: Placing the caucus within House voting patterns. Political Research Quarterly, 52, 583-608.
30.
Pitkin, H.F. ( 1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley : University of California Press.
31.
Richardson, S. ( 1998). Informal congressional groups and member organizations: Selected questions and responses (CRS Report for Congress). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
32.
Rohde, D.W. ( 1991). Parties and leaders in the post-reform House. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
Schickler, E., & Rich, A. ( 1997). Controlling the floor: Parties as procedural coalitions in the House. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 1340-1375.
34.
Shepsle, K.A., & Weingast, B.R. (1987). The institutional foundations of committee power. American Political Science Review, 81, 85-104.
35.
Sinclair, B. ( 1995). Legislators, leaders, and lawmaking: The U.S. House of representatives in the postreform era. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
36.
Sinclair, B. ( 2007). Unorthodox lawmaking: New legislative processes in the U.S Congress. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
37.
Singh, R. ( 1999). The congressional Black caucus: Racial politics in the U.S. Congress. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
38.
Stevens, A.G., Jr., Mulhollan, D.P., & Rundquist, P.S. (1981). U.S. congressional structure and representation: The role of informal groups. Legislative Studies Quarterly, VI, 415-437.
39.
Wolfensberger, D.R. ( 1998, November). Informal congressional caucuses and the policy process. Washington D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center.
