Where’s the Caucus? A Study of Minority Agenda Setting Behavior.

Abstract

Are Black and Latino members of Congress (MCs) effective in representing the interest of their constituents? What role, if any, do minority congressional caucuses play in assisting its members in representing the interest of African American and Latino constituents via agenda-setting?

Scholars have theorized that the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) matter, but only to the extent that they are able to vote cohesively on a bill, which implies that the CBC and CHC are just labels for MCs with liked-preferences. This dissertation argues against this claim and provide qualitative and quantitative evidence that minority caucuses, as institutions, matter. One way I demonstrate the added value of the CBC and CHC is by illustrating that when caucus members serve as caucus leaders they introduce more bills because of their staff capacity.

The CBC and CHC also matter as agenda-setters. Previous literature have theorized that the CBC and CHC are ineffective in representing the interest of racial and ethnic minorities because these caucus members fail to pass ubiquitous legislation alleviating racial and ethnic disparities (e.g. Singh, 1998). This dissertation investigates a different mechanism of caucus influence. My primary area of inquiry is the role of members of minority congressional caucuses in articulating and attaining agenda status for their policy priorities. In particular, this dissertation broadens the definition of agenda-setting for members of minority congressional caucuses by considering their ability to assist White MCs in advancing minority interest legislation through the endorsement of this legislation via cosponsorship, which I refer to as caucus influence. By studying the influence of minority caucuses via caucus leadership, I demonstrate that these caucuses play a more influential role in political representation than we might expect.