Who Advocates for the Disadvantaged? Reputation and Representing Group Interests

• In Event: Representation and the U.S. Congress

Abstract

A central component of evaluating the legitimacy of a representative democracy has to rest in determining the quality of representation received by the various segments of its residents and citizenry. The question of adequate representation for disadvantaged and marginalized groups is particularly relevant, as these are groups that are already subject to additional societal barriers. This project is devoted to explaining why certain members of the United States Congress choose to build their legislative reputation around advocating for disadvantaged groups in society, and what sets them apart from their colleagues. Members of Congress work to build reputations for themselves that speak to what their focus is within the legislature, and on whose behalf they are committed to working. This reputational branding is important, because it impacts the way that they are discussed in the media and what information trickles down to the folks back home in their districts. But legislators have a finite amount of time and resources, and must make specific choices about the topics on which they develop their expertise and the groups which they champion. Disadvantaged groups, though frequently requiring greater levels of government assistance or protection, tend to have lower levels of political involvement and political capital. These groups are therefore seen as being a less attractive for members of Congress to focus on, as they have fewer resources to offer and are thought to be less likely to hold members accountable for their legislative actions. Understanding why members of Congress choose to build reputations around advocating for disadvantaged groups offers critical insight into how and when the needs of these group members are prioritized and represented. I theorize that group size within a state or district couples with the level of district hostility towards a group to determine the amount of advocacy on behalf of a disadvantaged group that would conceivably be tolerated within a district. Within this “advocacy window,” discretion of the individual member becomes vitally important. I expect that descriptive representatives will be the most likely to take advantage of this advocacy window, and thus be more likely to make advocating for their group a primary part of their legislative reputation, above and beyond what might be expected based upon demographics and public opinion alone. To evaluate these questions, I use an original dataset of a US House members from a sampling over Congresses from the last forty years featuring a dependent variable measuring the extent to which a member’s reputation is rooted in advocating for the disadvantaged, which is hand-coded from the member profiles in CQ’s Politics in America over the last four decades. These profiles are written by political journalists in consultation with congressional staff, and are widely respected and read by members of the media, interest groups, lobbyists, and others, making them a viable source for this first scholarly attempt at quantifying legislative reputation. This project offers an important contribution to our understanding of when and by whom representation of the disadvantaged occurs, but also will provide broader insight into how members balance personal, partisan, institutional, and electoral concerns in their legislative choices as a representative.

Author

• Katrina McNally