Search

“Presidential power in an era of divided government”. While this may sound paradoxical, the modern governmental context highlights the reality of this statement. Given the modern political environment where public opinion is the currency of individualized pluralism, Samuel Kernell (1997) claims that ‘going public’ represents the most effective strategy for presidential influence. Paul Light (1999) asserts that agenda setting can be a formidable source of presidential influence: “…control of the agenda becomes a primary tool for securing and extending power” (2). Although a rich agenda setting literature exists which is frequently utilized to examine congressional policy making and its subsequent implications for representation writ large (e.g. Cobb and Elder 1983; Kingdon 1984; Baumgartner and Jones 1993), studies of presidential agenda setting are more sparse (Light 1999; Cohen 1995). The presidencies of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon present a unique opportunity to explore problem definition and agenda setting in the context of the domestic policy arena. Intriguing aspects of the policy process are overlooked when scholars myopically hone in on the legislative branch to the (relative) exclusion of the executive branch. This paper endeavors to illuminate the important role that two presidents played in setting the welfare reform agenda. As such, an exploration of Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan as a case of policy failure and Clinton’s Welfare Reform as a case of policy success will undoubtedly shed new theoretical insight and raise questions for future research in the areas of problem definition and presidential agenda setting. Indeed, these two policy cases amply demonstrate the inseparability of the concepts of problem definition and agenda setting. Finally, a ‘window of opportunity’ exists to test different theories of agenda setting for efficacy with regard to the president. A perusal of presidential rhetoric, in the form of speeches, press releases, and other public statements, will be utilized to determine the extent to which welfare reform permeated Nixon and Clinton’s public strategies. Furthermore, Deborah Stone’s theory of causal stories will serve as an analytical framework whereby an examination of competing efforts to define the problem both within and outside the presidential arena will be conducted. Since the initial framing and definition of a policy problem has a significant impact on the shape and tenor of a policy, presidential agenda setting has real implications for public opinion concerning and congressional estimations about public policies, particularly salient ones like welfare reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examine the impact of multiple referral on legislative processing in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1991-98. Previous literature leaves off with the 1980's. Our analysis confirms certain previous findings, while adding some interesting new twists. While multiple referral hurts a bill's chances of success in some stages of statute-making (committee passage, floor passage), a finding consistent with the literature, we find that it provides a boost to chances of receiving committee attention in the first place. Moreover, we find that the hit that multiply-referred bills take in committee and on the floor is much greater than suggested previously. Finally, we find no impact of multiple referral status on the likelihood of a House-passed bill being enacted into public law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Congressional mail handling practices have received little scholarly attention since the 1980s, though Congress and the policy environment have changed considerably in the last two decades. Technological advances have percolated through Congress and the policy community, and we know that interest groups have adapted these technologies as tools to generate "grassroots" lobbying campaigns. But the congressional reception of these campaigns has received comparatively little attention. Lobbying firms that specialize in generating grassroots (or activated) communications claim they are simply giving voice to previously held opinions, connecting constituents to their representatives. But do congressional offices see it this way? A recent news story may give representatives reason to be somewhat skeptical of activated communications. It was recently discovered that five letters sent to Rep. Tom Perriello, supposedly from minority organizations in his district, were actually forgeries sent by a Washington based lobbying firm. Do incidents of this nature taint all activated communications, leading congressional offices to perceive them as somehow less than legitimate?This paper briefly examines the evolution of congressional mail, especially volume and processing capabilities, then moves to a more in-depth look at mail handling in the contemporary Congress. Analysis of data from the Congressional Management Foundation indicate that offices are at least somewhat skeptical of activated communications, and this skepticism may have contributed to a predominate focus on efficiency in processing (rather than consideration of content). This focus on efficiency manifests itself in form letters and the building of databases that can later be used for promotional communications. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do legislators adopt a strategy of ambiguity? If so, what explains variation in inconsistency or ambiguity of legislator position-taking? Do legislators take more ambiguous positions when responding via letters to constituents who are on opposing sides of a policy issue? Theoretically, formal models of the strategy of ambiguity offer differing predictions. Some models suggest that ambiguity will rarely be a strategy, while others suggest ambiguity as a common strategy. We test these predictions of ambiguity with a field experiment of U.S. senators. We mailed two letters to every U.S. senator's office in Washington, one arguing against increased immigration and a second arguing for a more liberal immigration policy. We also conducted an experiment examining tax policy positioning. To conduct this experiment, we secured 100 separate addresses, two per state, from which to send letters to each state's U.S. senators during the 110th Congress (one address mailed a letter taking the pro-immigration position and the other address took the anti-immigration position). This was done by purchasing remote mailboxes or securing research confederates in those states willing to serve as the addresses for the letters. We then received and coded the responses received from each U.S. senator on the immigration and the tax issues in order to examine the differences in positions from each senator to a constituent on both sides of the issue. Specifically, we assess (1) whether senators' voting records match positions taken in letters responding to constituent queries, (2) the extent of ambiguity embedded within senators' responses to constituents, and (3) the consistency of senator position-taking on the immigration issue to constituents. Preliminary findings include dramatic differences in the letters senators sent back to their constituents, and varying levels of ambiguity. For instance, some senators presented highly consistent positions, responding with identical letters to the two "experimental" constituents on different sides of the immigration issue (and essentially disagreeing with one of the constituents). Other senators hedged and 'flip flopped' substantially, taking different positions dependent upon the constituents' stated views. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE, 2008) reports that the voter turnout rate among youth ages 18-24, declined 16 percentage points in presidential elections from 1972-2000. Voter turnout among this demographic surged in the 2004 elections, increasing by 11 percentage points over the 2000 elections (CIRCLE, 2008). Further, data from the 2008 primaries and caucuses show a 103% increase in voter turnout among youth over the 2004 primaries, indicating that the 2004 data may be more than an aberration (Young Democrats of America, 2008). This increase in political interest and action has spurned several media stories regarding the potential of the youth vote to swing the elections. However, little research examining whether the youth bloc is unique from other age groups is available, representing a significant gap in the literature. We propose to use National Election Studies data to determine if the youth bloc is a distinctive, unified voting bloc. We will then discuss the potential electoral impact of the youth bloc, insofar as it is unique. We expect that youth will be distinct in their ideology and partisanship, but not in their levels of political interest or knowledge. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An examination of grassroots activation campaigns as a lobbying strategy and the effect on congressional perceptions of incoming constituent communications and the representational relationship between Representatives and their constituents. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]