Bridging the Information Gap: Legislative Member Organizations as Social Networks in the United States and the European Union

7. Conclusion: How LMOs Do and Do Not Matter

185 chapter 7 Conclusion: How LMOs Do and Do Not Matter How LMOs Matter, Sometimes: LMO Impact on Legislative Outcomes One big question yet to be considered is to what extent the activities of legislative member organizations (LMOs) are consequential in that they affect the content of legislation. This is a difficult issue to address, because we expect the influence of LMOs to be diffuse and indirect. In fact, our theoretical argument about the strength of weak, cross-cutting ties, the exchange of policy-relevant information, and the collective gains reaped from both describes a kind of influence that should be difficult to measure. LMOs are most likely to affect the legislative process at the agenda-setting stage, or in the early stages of the bill formation process, when legislative proposals are first considered, deliberated, and negotiated. LMOs and Legislative Outcomes Identifying the direct impact of any particular player, group of actors, or other contextual influence on a final policy decision is exceedingly difficult because we cannot conclusively reject the counterfactual. For example, making the case that a particular amendment was introduced as a result of discussions in an intergroup or tracing a policy initiative back to ideas first raised in a congressional caucus will almost always be difficult and will often be impossible. The reality is that LMOs do not play a formal role in the legislative process, which means that any influence they wield will be indirect , through the activities of LMO members inside parties or committees. For example, amendments introduced by a European Parliament (EP) intergroup do not show up as such in the legislative records; as one staffer explains, “It is always an internal process. Of course you will never see it.”1 186 bridging the information gap In this light, it is not surprising that a number of respondents in both the EP and Congress share our sense that LMOs do not frequently directly affect legislative outcomes. Indeed, there is a fair degree of skepticism among some respondents in both chambers when asked if and how LMOs influence policy proposals.2 One, for example, maintains, “I don’t think you can really say one caucus really did or didn’t do something that made a difference at the end of the day.”3 Given their lack of formal legislative power, most LMO activities focus on agenda setting or agenda maintenance. Intergroups in the EP, for example , seek to affect policy outcomes by influencing the agenda of either the EP4 or the European Commission,5 by trying to ensure that particular causes do not get lost in the myriad of competing policy concerns, or by helping members of the European Parliament (MEPs) make up their minds on specific policy issues.6 Intergroups and their members use a number of tools to achieve these objectives—issuing parliamentary questions,7 writing letters to the president of the Commission or the Council signed by leaders and/or members of the intergroup,8 introducing initiative reports,9 or promoting written declarations.10 Congressional caucuses also help set the legislative agenda by keeping topics at the forefront of legislators’ attention11 and by engaging in internal TABLE 7.1. Examples of Caucus Influence on the Legislative Agenda Caucus Policy Congressional Coalition on Adoption More opportunities for foster children to attend college Congressional Diabetes Caucus Reauthorization of a Special Diabetes Program Congressional Freedom of the Press Caucus Establishment of Press Freedom Report at the State Department Congressional High Technology Caucus Support Research and Development Tax Credit Congressional Wildlife Caucus Wildlife Refuge funding Fire Services Caucus and its Institute Fire Grants and Safer Grants Korean Caucus Korea Free Trade Agreement National Guard and Reserve Components Dental care for Reservists Caucus Progressive Caucus Public option in the 2010 health care debatea Sportsmen’s Caucus Duck Stamp Program The Hazard Caucus National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program a The public option was not ultimately part of the legislation that passed, but a respondent felt that the efforts of the caucus affected the momentum and content of the discourse over the bill. Conclusion 187 advocacy efforts to build support and keep legislation moving. In the opinion of one respondent who discussed the reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program in 2010, “the [hazards] caucus was the only way to keep it out there, to keep it alive.”12 Similarly, in reference to the reauthorization of a special diabetes program, the Congressional Diabetes Caucus “has been...