---

A Majority of One: Legislative Life, Senator George W. Scott. Civitas Press, 2002, ISBN 0972276505, paper, 443 pages.

    As former Washington Senator George W. Scott himself describes it, A Majority of One divides into three separate sections: one on the legislative process, one on the evolution of lawmaking in Washington and throughout the states, and one on the biography of a state legislator/insider.  Drawing on his fourteen years of service in the Washington State House of Representatives and State Senate, Scott manages to make each section informative and interesting for the student of politics and the legislative process. 
    Commencing with his decision to run for political office in 1968, Scott gives the reader a first-hand account of how to succeed in a first attempt at electoral office. Although dated somewhat (he notes this was the period before computer-generated mailing lists and walking packets), the fifteen pages contained in Chapter 1: Getting Elected should be required reading for the novice campaigner. Simple yet practical, each chapter concludes with “Guideposts” that distill the main points of the chapter into a how-to kit for the beginner.
    Similarly, the middle section of the book deals with the practical day-to-day experiences of a citizen legislator including how to survive in the minority, the committee process, and building power through leadership.  While obviously tailored to reflect his experiences in the Washington legislature, the insights and observations are edifying for any student of the legislative process especially on the local level.
    Concluding with the comment that politics is like an intestinal parasite, a systemic affliction with no known cure, Scott offers the next best thing—a lively, intelligent glimpse into the disease.

Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders into Insiders, Tom A. Coburn with John Hart. Thomas Nelson, 2003, ISBN 0785262202, $24.95, cloth, 272 pages.

Written from the viewpoint of a practitioner, Breach of Trust offers the academic a seemingly honest look inside the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2000.  Coburn’s book speaks to many of the topics most studied by congressional scholars – member motivations, the potential (and sometimes realized) power of congressional leadership, and the potential for meaningful and effective citizen participation in representative democracy.
First elected to the House of Representatives during the “Republican Revolution” in 1994, Coburn shares his experiences in a quite candid manner.  He speaks, first and foremost, to the re-election motive of members, confirming what countless scholars have assumed for decades.  Members want to be re-elected, and for the vast majority re-election is the proximate goal.  The consequences of this motivation on policy outcomes and the institution are also explored.
Coburn also talks at length about the Speakership of Newt Gringrich and the power he attempted, often successfully, to wield over the Republican Congress.  This discussion offers insight into the conditions under which something approximating conditional party government can emerge in the House, and why such leadership may be destined to fail in the American system.
As with any work written in the style of a memoir or biography, one should expect explicit normative overtones.  And this work would not disappoint those expectations.  But despite its normative nature, Breach of Trust might prove useful in a number of academic settings, as it does speak quite clearly and openly to the questions of member motivations and the power of parties and leadership.

Glass Houses: Congressional Ethics and the Politics of Venom, Susan J. Tolchin and Martin Tolchin.  Westview Press, 2003, ISBN 0813341612, $22.00, paper, 216 pages.

    Glass Houses explores the political and partisan world of congressional ethics investigations.  According to Tolchin and Tolchin, congressional ethics investigations, which have never been more than quasi-judicial in nature, became increasingly politically charged following the Republican revolution of 1994 and under the Speakership of Newt Gingrich.  The current congressional environment, a fiercely partisan standoff, has produced an increasing propensity for both parties to employ ethics investigations with the intent to damage the political reputation of partisan opponents.     
    The post-1994 congresses, suggest Tolchin and Tolchin, offer something new in the way parties and members approach questions of ethics.  “For most of its history,” according to the authors, “Congress ignored the ethical lapses of its members until rare outbursts of public outrage or media attention forced it to act” (22).  Examining the recent history of ethics investigations, Tochin and Tolchin find evidence that, although public outrage continues to spur ethics investigations, partisan and political influences have become more prevalent catalysts of congressional investigations.
The book covers a range of highlights in ethics probes ranging from McCarthyism to Abscam to the Packwood scandal.  Along the way, the development and evolution of ethics committees is examined in detail.  An increase in the “politics of venom” has not, suggest the authors, produced meaningful improvement in ethical conduct among representatives.  Nor can it be expected to elicit better behavior unaccompanied by significant public pressure.  The scandal surrounding the fall of Jim Wright from the speakership followed by the rise and eventual fall of his arch accuser, Gingrich, provide what the authors term convenient “bookends to an era” during which congressional ethics investigations became unabashed tools of partisan politics.

On Capitol Hill: The Struggle to Reform Congress and its Consequences, 1948-2000, Julian Zelizer. Cambridge University Press, 2004, ISBN 0521801613, $30.00, cloth, 376 pages.

    All members of the Legislative Studies Section should read this book because it provides that which has been missing and hence most needed in contemporary congressional scholarship: a good historical narrative.  A generation or more ago American historians largely abandoned the field of political history in favor of social history.  During the same period, political scientists turned toward history, founding a “Politics and History” section, journals devoted to policy history, the emergence of a new field called American political development, and host of empirical studies drawing on measurable indicators such as, in the case of the Congress, votes.  Yet, while historians abandoned the field to political scientists, political scientists did not entirely fill the void, especially in providing thorough narrative accounts of historical periods.  Thus, if one searched for a history of the Congress, one had to look back three decades to Alvin Josephy’s, On The Hill, a book that skims the ground it covers. 
    Zelizer takes a similar title but his book is more focused and more thorough.  He uses the prism of congressional reform through which to view the changes in the Congress and the American political system during the second half of the twentieth century.  He identifies key periods in the transformation of Congress, and provides a systematic account of each.  Drawing on numerous archival sources as well as the broad secondary literature provided to him (much of it by political scientists), Zelizer weaves a narrative account that allows the reader to feel what it was like to be there as these historical events unfolded.
    This book is meticulously researched but it is interesting to observe the difference in approach that historians take.  Political scientists who study the Congress often draw on extensive interviews with members and other observers, usually focusing on relatively recent events.  Nelson Polsby has described this research technique as “sitting around on the couch.”  Zelizer appears to have undertaken no interviews in preparing this book, even though many of the characters about whom he writes are alive and well.  In contrast, Zeliger draws heavily upon archival sources and is thus able to identify what his characters wrote and thought when things happened, and does not rely on memories that may be uncertain or self-serving. 
    Some readers of this book will search it for an over-arching thesis that “explains” the historical events that the book so well describes.   To the extent that this book offers such a thesis, it lies in arguing that during the last half-century of American political history a “reform” coalition emerged that sought to fundamentally break down an older, more insulated, less democratic, and less visible political structure.  This process was slow and incremental, but eventually the coalition succeeded in transforming the congressional process.  The events and actors that Zelizer describes will be familiar to most members of the LSS, as they have been the objects of our own research for many years.  Readers of the book may differ in their assessments of his thesis; but all should appreciate the thoroughness of his research and the vitality of his narrative.  When asked, “where can I find a good narrative history of the modern Congress?,” we now have an answer.

The Financiers of Congressional Elections: Investors, Ideologues, and Intimates, Peter L. Francia, John C. Green, Paul S. Herrnson, Lynda W. Powell, and Clyde Wilcox. Columbia University Press, 2003, ISBN 0231116195, $22.50, paper, 203 pages.

    Financiers, n. 1. fat-cats, robber-barons, corporate rich, and Hollywood jetsetters that conspire to purchase the best Congress money can buy to further their own interests. 
    This is the predominant stereotype of the American political donor; an image easily supported and conjured when scanning the front pages of our newspapers or while watching any number of investigative television reports.  Unfortunately, it was buttressed recently by the political rhetoric surrounding the introduction, discussion, and passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002.  Yet, political scientists are burdened with the challenge of debunking various myths and stereotypes propagated by various media outlets and politicians.  In this vein, a team of researchers, headlined by congressional election and finance expert Paul Herrnson, seek to uncover the facts and paint a truer portrait of the financier.
    Contributions, to point out the obvious, are crucial to American elections.  Nonetheless, it is the individual contribution that typically accounts for more than half of all the money in congressional elections.  Significant contributors – defined as those who contribute more than $200 – comprise roughly two-thirds of this group.  The Financiers of Congressional Elections focuses upon these significant contributors in answering seven general questions: who contributes, how much do they contribute, what motivates donors, how do campaigns entice candidates to give, who gives to whom, what is the purpose of the contribution, what do donors think about the campaign finance system.  Relying on multiple surveys of donors and interviews with donors and congressional finance directors, this book reveals that some of our stereotypes are accurate; however, they also find that financiers have more nuances than previously assumed (those concerned about the methodology of this research will find an appendix that succinctly and systematically outlines the research project).
    The book divides itself into two substantive parts: one, confirmation of past knowledge (or stereotypes); two, new discoveries.  Among the not surprising aspects of the book: most significant contributors are white, middle-aged professionals who are well integrated into social and political networks. There are few young people, women, racial minorities, union members, and modest citizens. Financiers primarily give to incumbents or candidates in competitive elections.  Additionally, these donors are far more likely than the rest of the public to regularly maintain personal contact with congressmen. Creating a symbiotic relationship that repeats in every cycle, donors maintain personal contacts to express their needs and desires placing themselves into a pool of individuals who are constantly solicited by numerous congressmen.  Unfortunately, little of this information is surprising and confirms journalistic stereotypes.  Yet, not all is lost. 
    The contribution of this book is its ability to show that, despite the demographic homogeneity of financiers, their motivations are heterogeneous. The subtitle of the book reveals three types of donors: investors, ideologues, and intimates.  The investor is the stereotype; the self-interested professional.  Yet, ideologues, those that deeply care about certain issues, will help most candidates demonstrating a common support on particular issues and legislation.  Finally, we have the intimate.  Many of these intimates are incidental donors; individuals with little interest in politics giving money at the behest of some friend or relative.  When intimates do have issue concerns, they tend to be local in nature.  While at the macro-level these individuals confirm conventional financial wisdom, a micro-level examination reveals nuances between these typologies in their patterns of giving, their method and amount of contacts with candidates, and their motivation for contributing. Last, but not least, across all groups, most of the financiers expressed dissatisfaction regarding the heightened role of money and voiced a desire for reforms of the campaign finance system.
    Initially, I feared that the book, by being published in 2003 and relying largely on surveys conducted in 1996, had become a bit outdated in the wake of the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002. This fear is a bit unwarranted because the BCRA of 2002 increases the amount that these significant donors may give to candidates; thus, it is presumed that the role of financiers will increase.  This book lets us know who stands to gain the most and provides a factual means to ground discussions regarding the possible implications of this courtship between financiers and candidates.  I feel those interested in the financial dimension of congressional elections should, at the very least, peruse this book.  This book will become a comparative resource for the next study of financiers in the post-BCRA, 527-sponsored campaign finance world. 

The Invention of the United States Senate, Daniel Wirls and Stephen Wirls. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004, ISBN 0801874394, $18.95, paper, 274 pages.

    The Invention of the United States Senate by Daniel Wirls and Stephen Wirls provides an examination of the theoretical and practical precedents of republican government, the deliberative process of the constitutional convention, and the process of institutionalization which led to the formation of what has been referred to as the “world’s greatest deliberative body.”  This comprehensive analytical approach leads to a number of conclusions, probably the most significant being the argument that the need for a strong Senate provided a catalyst for the “great compromise,” rather than the more common assumption that the Senate was merely a result of the constitutional bargain.
    The Invention of the United States Senate provides a more complete assessment of institutional origins than those provided in earlier studies, according to the authors.  Their argument incorporates an “integrative way of looking at the politics of the convention by showing the ways in which principles about a properly constructed Senate interacted with political interests and power politics in the multidimensional struggle to construct the Senate before, during, and after the convention (6).  Specifically, chapters cover theoretical sources and models of republican and liberal thought, theory and practice in American predecessors (1776-1787) to the federal institution, the constitutional convention and debate surrounding the creation of the Senate, the early institutionalization of the body, theoretical arguments advanced by proponent and opponent founders that eventually proved unfounded, and the evolution which eventually constructed an institution “that became neither the embodiment of wisdom and stability nor the vigorous defender of federalism” anticipated by its inventors (9).  Wirls and Wirls provide a detailed, well-written and argued analysis of a unique and evolutionary democratic institution that lends significant insight into the world’s most powerful legislative upper house. 

The Medium and the Message: Television Advertising and American Elections, Kenneth M. Goldstein and Patricia Strach. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004, ISBN 0131777742, $26.67, paper, 164 pages.
 
    Originally presented as a series of papers at a conference in April 2001, this compilation is an attempt to shed new light on television advertising in modern political campaigns.  Using a technology developed and marketed by Competitive Media Reporting and extensive coding exercises, the authors hope to contribute to what they perceive as a lack of comprehensive data on the content, timing, volume, and targeting of political advertising.  As is sometimes the case, the technology employed is almost as interesting as the results produced.  The ad-tracking technology monitors the transmissions of the national networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox) as well as the twenty-five national cable networks (such as CNN, ESN, and TBS).  It also monitors local spot advertising in the country’s top seventy-five media markets.  Political spots are downloaded and individual storyboards are created for each spot.  Analysts code the advertisements into particular categories and the “creatives” are tagged with unique digital fingerprints.  Thereafter, the system automatically recognizes and logs that particular commercial whenever and wherever it airs.  As a result, the data presented is probably some of the most comprehensive to date on this subject.
    The seven chapters of the book examine different aspects of political television commercials and provide information and analysis that is always interesting and sometimes new and creative. For example, Travis Ridout, in Chapter 1, examines the specific characteristics of the presidential primary process including their timing, their sequential nature, and the presence of multiple candidates in an intraparty contest. While his expectations are not necessarily groundbreaking (i.e. candidates are likely to advertise more in primaries that they have a chance of winning and candidates are more likely to compete in states with a greater number of delegates), the use of the extensive data allows empirical proof of these expectations and provides the impetus for a new series of scholarly research on the effects of the commercials in areas such as voter learning, for example.
    Similarly, by analyzing the specific spot purchases of advertising across the major media markets, a later chapter points out that in 2000 Bush enjoyed a significant late-campaign media advantage in the Little Rock, Nashville, Memphis, and Knoxville markets. Of course, as we know, had Gore won either Arkansas or Tennessee the debacle of Florida would have been an obscure footnote and Gore would have won the presidency.
    Other chapters include an analysis of what motivates issue advocacy by interest groups, whether outside “soft” money influences voters as effectively as regulated “hard” money and the effectiveness of negative advertising. While some chapters are written more in a scholarly vein, the editors never veer from their goal of communicating to a wide variety of audiences and to help create a dialogue among scholars, journalists, and political professionals.

The Other Campaign: Soft Money and Issue Advocacy in the 2000 Congressional Elections, David B. Magleby, editor. Rowman & Littlefield, 2003, ISBN 0742517713, $27.95, paper, 263 pages.
 
    David B. Magleby provides an insightful examination of the effect of outside money, in its varied forms, in competitive congressional elections. The structure of this edited volume is useful to scholars, practitioners, and professors of American campaigns. In the initial chapter, Magleby discusses the different types of campaign funds used in the 2000 congressional elections.  He is careful to place the 2000 election cycle into its political context, showing that only seventeen races are considered competitive, the control of Congress is at stake, and a highly competitive presidential race is taking place. For the case studies, Magleby utilizes the expertise of locally based academics in the competitive districts.  He then, in turn, uses the data they have gathered in conjunction with co-authors to analyze the impact of the different forms of outside money. 
    Magleby and Eric A. Smith examine the use of party soft money in Chapter Two. This analysis indicates that the Republican party has $200 million, or 2 to 1, advantage over the Democratic party in terms of hard money spending.  In terms of congressional elections, the soft money expenditures were roughly equal.  In examining the effect of party resources on the elections, they find that both parties were able to use money strategically and thus, the messages of each were transmitted to the public.  The Democratic party was more strategic than the Republican party; they utilized victory funds, targeted deployment to key races, and transferred money to the states for local use.  In addition, Democratic issues were more salient than were Republican issues.  Strategy plus issue salience compensated for the relative dearth of funds, and Democrats were able to gain seats. The sources for party soft money were traditional in nature:  labor contributed the most for the Democrats and business contributed the most for the Republicans. Party ads were candidate focused, but not candidate controlled, and as a result, they were occasionally off-message, had factual errors, and were negative.  This party “help” often harmed the candidate.  Magleby and Smith found that parallel party campaigns and party fund transfers to the district may make candidates more indebted to the national party and the sources of national party money, but did not result in strengthened party politics within the electorate.
    Interest groups and issue advocacy is the topic of Chapter Three.  Anna Nibley Baker and Magleby give a short history of interest groups and their use of issue advocacy in political campaigns, and then examine their impact. The Christian Coalition and insurance lobby groups were the first on the scene, anonymously targeting congressional races and President Clinton in 1996.  In general, issue advocacy ads target competitive races, can be negative or supportive, and the anonymous interest groups responsible ally themselves consistently with either Republicans or Democrats.  They find that, in general, issue advocacy ads aid candidates, but candidates often object to their aid.  Candidates necessarily have no control over the ads that groups choose to run. As a result, they lose control over the content, agenda, and tone of the campaign. Nibley Baker and Magleby assert that loss of candidate control over the agenda to a more pluralistic array of voices reduces candidate accountability.
    Magleby and Jason Richard Beal examine the internal communication strategies utilized by interest groups in Chapter Four.  They point to three strategies utilized by interest groups:  the above-mentioned issue advocacy, internal communications, and independent expenditures.  The allies of the Democratic party used this more effectively than did the allies of the Republican party.  Only the National Rifle Association was as effective for the Republican party. 
    The following seven chapters track eight of the seventeen competitive congressional races of 2000.  The authors examine the impact of interest group and party activity on the candidate-centered congressional races.  In the concluding chapter, Magleby utilizes these analyses and addresses the significant impact of soft money in these races. 
    As a whole, the authors found that while Republicans still led in the area of hard money, raising and spending twice as much as Democrats, party soft money and party-allied interest groups aided the Democrats in gaining parity in outside money.  Due to the low number of competitive races, money was concentrated heavily, and while some races became oversaturated, citizen interest did not decrease, rather, saturation mobilized partisan tendencies.  In addition, strategic early intervention in races and strategic media purchases by parties and interest groups were effective aids to candidates.  While internal communications aided candidates allied with groups which have clearly defined member bases, issue advocacy, independent expenditure ads, and party ads were harmful to candidates if they were off-message, negative, or had errors. 
Soft money transforms candidate-centered elections. Interest groups create an agenda in competitive races that is broader and more pluralistic.  Parties, however, have not chosen to use money to advance party politics within the electorate, but electorally vulnerable members of Congressw must increasingly rely on the national party for support and funds throughout the election cycle in order to compete. This book raises important questions about the effect of outside money on the electoral connection between members and constituents.   

War Stories from Capitol Hill, Colton C. Campbell and Paul S. Herrnson, editors. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004, ISBN 0130280887, $20.00, paper, 140 pages.

    War Stories From Capitol Hill is a long overdue contribution to the study of Congress. In this examination of conflict and change in the legislative process, authors have brought to the table their collective experience both as teachers and students of congressional politics. Most of the contributors are former American Political Science Association Congressional Fellows, having personally served as legislative staff in the House and the Senate for both Democrats and Republicans.  David Leal, in fact, worked in the office of presidential-candidate Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), and offers a riveting account of the unorthodox lawmaking surrounding juvenile crime legislation in the aftermath of the Columbine shootings from the vantage point of a staff member on Kerry’s team. 
    Students of Congress will see Washington politics from the vantage point of a real insider, watching partisan and personal contests ranging a wide gamut of issues.  From the battle over term limits in the mid-1990’s that brought district-level consequences for the Speaker of the House, to the battle over the census in 2000 that struck at the heart of representative government and clearly demonstrated the role of the judiciary in policy implementation, these battles have defined the politics on the Hill for the last decade. Consequently, this book is useful for not only describing the legislative process as it really operates but also for presenting the raw politics at play in the policy decisions of the last decade.  In just 15 pages, the introductory chapter skims across our full knowledge of legislative behavior with the ease that only comes from first-hand experience.  I truly appreciate the contribution of this text to the literature and can undoubtedly say that I plan to integrate it into my legislative politics course readings for both undergraduate and graduate courses alike.

Women and Power on Capitol Hill: Reconstructing the Congressional Women’s Caucus, Irwin N. Gertzog. Lynne Reinner Publishers, 2004, ISBN 1588262839, $49.95, cloth, 197 pages.

    In Women and Power on Capitol Hill, Irwin Gertzog analyzes the history of the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues (CCWI) from its creation in 1977 to its struggle to survive within the congressional reforms made by the “Republican Revolution” of 1994. Through his historical analysis, Gertzog traces the development, barriers, and successes of the organization while highlighting many of the women who used the caucus as a way to champion “women’s issues.”
    While the initial attempts to create a women’s caucus suffered many false starts and a great deal of opposition from key female congressional members, several women were finally able to get it up and running in 1977. With an eye towards bipartisanship, inclusiveness, and diversity, the Caucus was able to withstand the 1980s – even through twelve years of Republican presidential leadership. However, the advent of the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues was not far ahead. Between 1993 and 1994, the CCWI witnessed unparalleled success. The 1992 elections had brought 24 new women to the House of Representatives – many of whom joined the organization – and a new administration to the White House. Largely because of these changes, 66 caucus-sponsored measures were passed during the 103rd Congress. Unfortunately, this success was not long-lasting. The 1994 elections ushered in a Republican majority that was focused on reorganizing Congress in a way that would effectively dissolve many legislative service organizations, like the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues. Although the CCWI was nearly destroyed during this period of reorganization, Gertzog points out that it has continued to survive and fight for “women’s issues” throughout the 1990s.
    In Women and Power on Capitol Hill, Gertzog provides a thorough historical analysis of the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues that would be extremely interesting to students of women and politics. In addition, he provides an interesting perspective on the importance and impact of the Republican reorganization of Congress in 1994 that would be useful to any student of Congress.

BACK TO TOP