It’s the No. 1 thing advocates ask when they get in to see a lawmaker: Would you please cosponsor our legislation? Organizations and congressional offices point to cosponsorships as evidence that a bill has momentum, and to signal their own effectiveness. But National Journal‘s strategic-research team found that having a lot of people sign on to a bill doesn’t necessarily make the legislation more likely to pass.
NJ‘s team looked at every bill introduced in the House during the 112th Congress (not counting resolutions), and a scatterplot of the data reveals a definite pattern—dotted swiss. There was a very slight link between bill-passage rate and the number of cosponsors a bill attracted, but it wasn’t close to predictive—and wasn’t far from nonexistent. Even bills that garnered more than 200 cosponsors had only a 45.8 percent success rate, in a body that requires 218 votes for passage.
Up on the Hill, staffers were only mildly surprised to learn that this was the case. For one thing, they point out, the House isn’t passing all that much legislation to begin with these days. And, on a percentage basis, much of what is making it through is legislation of the renaming-a-post-office variety. That kind of bill isn’t likely to draw a lot of cosponsors or to require a groundswell of backers to pass. In addition, they say, lawmakers frequently introduce legislation for reasons that have nothing to do with actually legislating. Says one House Republican aide: “A lot of bills are introduced just as messaging points, and there’s no intention of getting them passed.”
Or there’s no chance of getting them passed—a circumstance that’s especially common for the minority party. As one House Democratic aide notes, “For Democrats, most of what we support or introduce isn’t going to make it to the floor.” In part because of this, party members often push for cosponsors on big messaging measures—if they can’t make a law, they can at least make a statement—which in turn helps explain why more than half of the bills that had more than 200 cosponsors still didn’t go anywhere.
There is some direct value in pursuing cosponsorships, the Republican aide asserts: “It’ll be easier when you’re whipping your bill if you already know that you have broad consensus for it.” But the real value of cosponsorship isn’t necessarily reflected in the fate of a given measure. Cosponsoring colleagues’ legislation helps a lawmaker build a set of public values, the Democratic aide says. It is an expression of a member’s position on an issue—a concrete one that he or she can tout to constituents. “It gives you something to point to, right?”
When a bill attracts cosponsors, it helps the legislation’s originator, too. “I think, one, you’re trying to send a message to your district: ‘I’ve got a good idea, and these 70 or 80 members agree with me,’ ” the House Republican aide says. It also shows that a member can build a coalition and move something forward. Those are accomplishments that lawmakers in a relatively inactive Congress can highlight back in their districts—and beyond. When a lawmaker is able to show the inside-the-Beltway crowd evidence of his or her leadership skills, says the House Republican aide, it “bodes well politically [and] financially.”
In the short term, cosponsorships may be more useful for relationship- and career-building, as well as public relations, than they are for getting laws passed. But, the Democratic aide says, while it’s easy for outsiders to be cynical about the reasons Congress does what it does, and to view bill introductions and cosponsorships that way, the reality is more complex. Good ideas, and even good bills, don’t necessarily light a fire under leadership the first time around, he says. More allies and more awareness can only help a cause in the long run. Building support, he says, “can take time.”
For more from National Journal‘s strategic research team, go to our Presentation Center.
What We're Following See More »
Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:
- Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
- Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
- They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
- One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”
At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”