The Value of Cosponsorships

It isn’t what you might think.

National Journal
Sarah Mimms, Brian Resnick and Brian Mcgill
Sarah Mimms Brian Resnick Brian McGill
July 18, 2014, 1 a.m.

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 »
SUFFOLK POLL
New Survey Shows Clinton Up 9 in Pennsylvania
11 minutes ago
THE LATEST

If a new poll is to be believed, Hillary Clinton has a big lead in the all-important swing state of Pennsylvania. A new Suffolk University survey shows her ahead of Donald Trump, 50%-41%. In a four-way race, she maintains her nine-point lead, 46%-37%. "Pennsylvania has voted Democratic in the past six presidential elections, going back to Bill Clinton’s first win in 1992. Yet it is a rust belt state that could be in play, as indicated by recent general-election polling showing a close race."

Source:
$500 MILLION PROJECT
Obama Library Heading to Jackson Park in Chicago
29 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

"President Barack Obama has chosen Jackson Park, a lakefront park that once hosted the world’s fair on the city’s South Side, for his $500 million presidential library, according to a person familiar with the matter."

Source:
THREE NIGHTS RUNNING
Democrats Beat Republicans in Convention Ratings So Far
51 minutes ago
THE DETAILS

Wednesday was the third night in a row that the Democratic convention enjoyed a ratings win over the Republican convention last week. Which might have prompted a fundraising email from Donald Trump exhorting supporters not to watch. "Unless you want to be lied to, belittled, and attacked for your beliefs, don't watch Hillary's DNC speech tonight," the email read. "Instead, help Donald Trump hold her accountable, call out her lies and fight back against her nasty attacks."

Source:
THE QUESTION
How Many VIPs Were the Secret Service Protecting in Philly Last Night?
2 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Seven, according to an official Secret Service tweet.

Source:
‘MOGUL,’ ‘DAREDEVIL’
Candidates’ Code Names Revealed
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Clintons will retain their Secret Service "code names from the last time they lived in the White House. Hillary Clinton is EVERGREEN and Bill ClintonEAGLE. Donald Trump is MOGUL, according to reports, and Melania Trump MUSE. The vice presidents get code names, too: Mike Pence is HOOSIER—a little on the nose—and his wife HUMMINGBIRD. Tim Kaine is DAREDEVIL, somewhat ambitiously. His wife's? To be determined."

Source:
×