The Value of Cosponsorships

It isn’t what you might think.

National Journal
Brian Mcgill, Brian Resnick and Sarah Mimms
Add to Briefcase
Brian McGill Brian Resnick and Sarah Mimms
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 »
ON THE CALL: “AT LEAST THAT WAS SACRED”
Gen. Kelly Rips Rep. Wilson for Criticism
7 hours ago
THE LATEST
GOP FORMER PRES V. GOP CURRENT PRES
Bush Slams Trump, Implicitly
8 hours ago
THE DETAILS
AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED CONSIDERATION
Senate Rejects Effort to Nix SALT Tax Changes
8 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Senate Democrats on Thursday failed in their first attempt to save the state and local tax deduction, which helps many residents of California and other high-cost states reduce their federal income tax bills. The Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-47 to reject an amendment that would have prevented the Senate from considering any bill that repeals or limits the deduction as part of a planned tax overhaul."

Source:
MEETING WITH SENATE GOP
Trump to Hill Next Tuesday
9 hours ago
THE DETAILS
INTERPARTY FEUDING CONTINUES UNDER PEREZ
Longtime Progressive Members Pushed Out at DNC
10 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A shake-up is underway at the Democratic National Committee as several key longtime officials have lost their posts, exposing a still-raw rift in the party and igniting anger among those in its progressive wing who see retaliation for their opposition to DNC Chairman Tom Perez. The ousters come ahead of the DNC's first meeting, in Las Vegas, Nevada, since Perez took over as chairman with a pledge this year to unite a party that had become badly divided during the brutal Bernie Sanders-Hillary Clinton 2016 primary race."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login