View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository PATHWAYS TO CONGRESS: PRECONGRESSIONAL CAREERS AND CONGRESSIONAL BEHAVIOR BY KATHERINE A. FRANCIS DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2014 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor Tracy Sulkin, Chair and Director of Research Professor William Bernhard Professor Jeffery Mondak Assistant Professor Gisela Sin ABSTRACT Members of Congress have a variety of career experiences before Congress, non-political and political. In this dissertation, I bring together interdisciplinary strands of research on careers and occupational behavior to compare how MCs from different career backgrounds act in the U.S. House of Representatives. I argue that career experiences can provide relevant skills and insights that members in their first and second terms use to adjust to being Representatives. Through a large-scale analysis of members serving in the 101st-112th Congresses (1989-2012), I find that precongressional career experiences have multiple connections to members’ decisions. Career experiences relate to the contents of members’ legislative agendas, their orientation toward legislative activities and constituent outreach, and their partisan loyalty. Members with legislative and executive backgrounds are more active in the legislative process and more successful in seeing their bills become law. MCs with different career experiences also craft different legislative agendas – the number and types of bills on which they take legislative action. New MCs significantly introduce and cosponsor a greater number of bills on policy topics that relate to their past experience, for instance – medical doctors introducing health bills. There is also an impact on the specialization of MCs’ legislative agendas. Those individuals who have worked in environments emphasizing specialization, such as state legislators and lawyers, focus on a fewer number of policy topics. Finally, MCs with experience in partisan bodies donate more campaign money to their copartisans. My results have implications for policy outcomes and constituent representation, addressing debates about the selection of representations and the attendant consequences such as the breadth and depth of the legislative agenda and the cohesiveness of political parties. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My career path bears little resemblance to those of MCs (for the record, I have worked as a nanny, snow cone operator, library worker, waitress, and day camp counselor). Nevertheless, like MCs, my graduate career is the result of the support of many individuals. Without those mentioned below, I am certain this product would not be possible. I would like to thank: Tracy Sulkin, for being an excellent advisor. Her support, advice, sense of humor, and perspective taught me numerous lessons that will serve me well throughout my career journey. I consider it a privilege to have been mentored by such a remarkable and caring individual. The rest of my committee – Bill, Jeff, and Gisela – for taking my idea seriously, encouraging me to explore new directions, and providing valuable perspective on the process. The ‘magical’ cohort for many selfless hours spent reviewing my work, putting up with my indecision, and making graduate school not just passable but pleasant. Friends: Emily, Grace, Jenny, Jessie, Katie, Kelli, Kristy, Stef, Amy, Beth, Ariana, Louise, Ron, Mary, Allen, Barb, Dutch, Kristin, David, Betsy, Nathan, Joe, and Abby. Finally, my families. The Francis and Spiegel families – for welcoming me into your remarkable legacies, many thoughtful actions and gifts, and good advice. My biological family – words fail to express how grateful and thankful I am for you all. My siblings – for making life a game and a song. Dad and Dawn – for always being there, cheering me on, and believing in me. To Mom – my other great cheerleader and fan, for inspiring the crazy idea of a Ph.D. in the first place and encouraging me all the way through. I could not have done it without you. And, finally, to Chris – your love and support have been the other cornerstone of this work. To you, and to my parents, I dedicate this project with deep gratitude and appreciation. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Tracing Career Paths to Congress…………………………………………….1 Chapter 2: The Intersection of Precongressional Careers and Legislative Behavior……23 Chapter 3: Exploring Precongressional Careers………………………………………....55 Chapter 4: Deciding What to Do As A New Member of Congress…………………..…84 Chapter 5: Policy Agendas and Previous Experiences…..…………………………..…128 Chapter 6: Career Paths to Party Loyalty………………………………………………168 Chapter 7: The Legacy of Precongressional Careers………………………………...…206 Appendix A: Coding of Career Experiences…………………………………………...223 Appendix B: Legislative Activity of New MCs by Policy Topic……………………....226 References………………………………………………………………………………230 iv Chapter 1: Tracing Career Paths to Congress “But the real experience that is important in this job is the experience we bring to the job, the experience of having been teachers, farmers, or businessmen[women].” Rep. Ronald Packard (R-IN), Congressional Record 1995 H3924 (as quoted in Herrick and Fisher 2007) Members of Congress (MCs) arrive on Capitol Hill having had a variety of different career experiences. Prior to Congress, they have worked as everything from medical doctors to mayors, law enforcement officials to legislators. Nick Smith and Peter Hoekstra represent two opposite extremes on the spectrum of career paths that MCs take to office. Both are Republicans from Michigan first elected to Congress in 1992. For Rep. Smith, being elected to the House of Representatives capped decades of public service. After Rep. Smith earned a Master’s degree in Economics in 1959, he spent two years working as an Intelligence Officer in the United States Air Force (1959-1961). At the end of his tour of duty, he returned home to manage his family’s fifth-generation dairy farm in Addison, Michigan, a period that proved to be a fertile beginning for his political career. While living in Addison, Rep. Smith served as a Somerset Township Constable, Trustee and Supervisor for six years (1962-1968) and for two years as a representative to the Hillsdale County Board of Supervisors (1966-1968). In 1969, he was appointed the Chairman of the Michigan Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service. Three years later, he became Deputy Administrator and Director of Energy for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a job he held for three years. The next stage of his career began in 1975, when Rep. Smith was offered the position of Commissioner of the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration and left Washington, D.C. to return to his home state. Within four years, he returned to electoral politics, winning a seat in the state House of Representatives in 1979 and in 1981. He followed his tenure in the state House with an additional ten years of service in the Michigan Senate (1983-1992). It 1 was on the heels of these legislative victories (preceded by his seven other career experiences) that Rep. Smith won election to Congress in 1992 (Almanac of American Politics). In comparison, Rep. Peter Hoekstra’s path to Congress was less complicated. After graduating from the University of Michigan in 1977 with a Master’s degree in Business Administration, Rep. Hoekstra was hired at Herman Miller, Inc., the furniture company credited with inventing the first office cubicle. Rep. Hoekstra stayed with Herman Miller for 15 years, rising through the management ranks to become vice-president of marketing. In 1992, he left the company, his sole employer during his time in the workforce, to launch a successful bid for Congress (Almanac of American Politics). In short, Reps. Smith and Hoekstra entered Congress with distinctly different career experiences. Although they were elected to undertake the same job, they approached it from very different positions. This is true of new members of Congress in general. For example, the other freshmen MCs elected with Reps. Smith and Hoekstra to represent Michigan in the 103rd Congress (1992-1993) had worked as a congressional staffer (Rep. James Barcia, D-MI), an insurance agent (Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-MI), and a state trooper (Rep. Bart Stupak, D-MI).1 The career diversity in the Michigan delegation is not unique. A report by Congress’ nonpartisan research agency identifies a total of 34 different precongressional career experiences that members of the 112th Congress had before office (Manning 2012).2 This diversity 1 These differences are highlighted by the fact that the new MCs from Michigan were similar in age, race, gender, district demographics, and electoral security. All five were middle-aged white men with college or graduate degrees who were married with children and had lived in Michigan most of their lives. Additionally, they five came from majority-white, middle class districts – four of which were predominately rural, and four of the five had faced competitive elections in the fall (Almanac of American Politics). 2 These include: educators and administrators from the elementary to graduate level; medical doctors and nurses; dentists and ophthalmologists; veterinarians; psychiatrists and psychologists; ministers or religious