K Street Cafe

“The Hill” reports today that the bailout vote in the House this week was a “Crushing Failure for Lobbyists.” Hill offices are reporting a huge surge in constituent communications.    Even earlier this week, I posted a blog that showed an increase in constituent communications as a result of free media coverage of the story.  However, a quick analysis of the voting patterns for this week’s House votes suggests it was not grassroots pressure, lobbyists’ arm twisting, or even fear losing election that drove members.  It was good-old-fashioned “conscience.”  These folks just did what they thought was right.

First, the grassroots pressure is well documented.  Congress.org saw more than 100,000 messages sent last week to Members of Congress.  Roll Call reports today that web servers in the House crashed under the strain.  There is very little evidence to support “The Hill’s” story today that lobbyists got rolled on this bill.  There was little time to put pressure on lawmakers, and few did any advocacy advertising or direct e-mails to staff.

And when you examine the voting patterns, it shows that those legislators who are most vunerable to lose the upcoming election voted overwhelming in favor of the bill.  Of those House Members who won by less than 55% in the last election, 77% of them voted in favor of the bill.  A comparison of Democrats and Republicans did not show big partisan differences.  Among vunerable GOP members, 88% voted in favor of the bailout, and among vunerable Dem’s 70% voted in favor of the bill.

There is ample evidence that the most influential factor in a legislator’s decision-making process is constituent pressure.  This is especially true when you realize that most of the decisions a lawmaker makes are not life-and-death.  However, when it is a big decision — like going to war or the biggest financial investment in US history — research suggests that politicians follow their own instincts, value system, and ideology.