Caucuses have a relatively brief history in the U.S. Congress; although caucusing began with the Democratic Study Group in 1959, the number of caucuses remained small until the legislative reform era of the 1970s. It was not until 1979 that caucuses gained semi-official recognition as legislative service organizations, a designation with which office space and a budget were included. After that point, the number of caucuses continued to rise through the 1980s and 1990s.
Caucuses are said to serve a number of legislative functions including the generation and distribution of information (Hammond 1998; Hammond 1989; Stevens, Mulhollan and Rundquist 1981), the framing of problems and the formation of voting coalitions (Hammond 1989). Although these activities may be designed to further particular legislative ends, an important and perhaps unintended result is an increase in congressional cohesion through a new set of informal, voluntary associations that supplement the formal, compulsory associations of the committee system. Each of these activities requires a commitment of time and energy on the behalf of congressional staff and congresspersons themselves. As structural sociologists working in various theoretical traditions have pointed out, time and energy-intensive interaction in organizations leads to the formation of strong social ties (Carley 1991; Feld 1981; McPherson and Smith-Lovin 1987) The ties that form in congressional caucuses bind representatives to an alternate set of political obligations, coalitions and cultures that may have a powerful impact on congressional politics.
Caucuses also emerge and disappear at a high rate. Table 1 shows all congressional caucuses for the 103rd and 104th Congresses listed in the Congressional Staff Directory. Out of 123 officially-recognized caucuses in the four years, 26 died in the 103rd Congress and 20 were born in the 104th Congress.
What are the conditions under which these births and deaths occur? Current explanations of caucus birth, growth, change and death focus on the representation of interests in issue-centered politics. In her explanation of the life cycle of caucuses, Hammond suggests that caucuses are born when issues become relevant to constituent citizens or industries call for attention to issues that are not being addressed (Hammond 1998: 54). Similarly, caucuses fade away when the issues they were meant to address fade in importance or other groups begin to address the same issues (Hammond 1998: 63-64). This straightforward story has complications. Some caucuses, such as the New England Congressional Caucus, the Travel and Tourism Caucus, the Budget Study Group and the Wednesday Group, have been able to change their missions and membership requirements when initial goals are met or become irrelevant (Hammond 1998: 56-59). Changes in issue salience cannot account for this alternative path of development. Indeed, in cases like these, it seems that caucus goals may be altered to fit membership structure rather than the other way around.
Go To Page: 1 2
