Copyright by
Dorothy Hartt Cronheim
195 d CONGRESSMEN AND THEIR COMMUNICATION PRACTICES
DISSERTATION
Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
DOROTHY HARTT CRONHEIM, A.B., M.A.
******
The Ohio State University 1957
Approved by:
Department of Political Science PREFACE
In developing the picture of congressional communi
cation practices portrayed in this study, I drew upon the
survey replies received from the offices of 25 per cent of
the senators and representatives who served in the 2d Session
of the 84th Congress. Interview answers from 138 members or
their assistants were also primary sources of data. Other facts, ideas, and anecdotes were garnered during numerous coffee breaks with several of their staff members, half a dozen Washington correspondents, and various participants in the congressional interneship program of the American Politi cal Science Association. On the basis of the Interview and survey,replies of a geographic cross section of the 96 senators, I also sought to learn whether or not their activi ties in the communications area are affected by certain conditions inside and outside of Congress.
Despite the widespread cooperation I received, certain limitations on this kind of study must be recognized. It is limited to answers about practices that congressmen are will ing to acknowledge, even though some of their most important practices may thus be excluded. It Is limited by the skill of the interviewer, the representativeness of the sample, and the responsiveness of those interviewed. Given these re strictions, the defense of the study and its methods turns upon the fact that surveys and interviews are the chief re search tools available to persons interested in this aspect
- li - iii
of congressional behavior. Furthermore, even if the find
ings prove incomplete, they may serve as exploratory land
marks for future investigators.
The months of research spent on this study have been
brightened in countless ways by the help and encouragement
I received from those who participated in it as respondents
or advisers and from two friends who cheerfully tolerated my musings about it over many a cup of afternoon tea. The
senators and their administrative assistants, the repre sentatives and their secretaries— all on Capitol Hill were as kind and helpful as any investigator could wish. My thanks go to each of them for willingly supplying the raw data which made the study possible.
Like all new political scientists, I owe much to the faculty members under whom I have studied en route to the
Ph.D. degree. The list of their contributions is too long to record, but I am grateful for all of them. However, I would like to acknowledge the special assistance of the members of my dissertation committee:
1. To Professor E. Allen Helms, its chairman, my
appreciation both for his willingness to assume
this extra-burden after the study was well under
way and for his thoughtfulness in making himself
available for consultation during the months he
was "off-duty."
2. To Professor Lawrence J, R. Herson, for numerous
profitable discussions about how to avoid methodological roadblocks and for helping me spot
several rocky spots in the road before I passed the
detour signs.
3. To Professor Harvey C. Mansfield, for his kind
support when the paper was at a critical stage
and for his suggestions about its objectives
which helped me bring it into focus again and carry
it on to its conclusion.
Finally, I will always be indebted to the late Professor
Dayton E. Heckman, under whom this study was begun, for his inspiring example as a teacher, for his many kindnesses both as adviser and friend, and for his sense of justice, which was exceeded only by his thoughtfulness. TABLE OP CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. CONGRESSMEN AND THEIR COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS . . 1
II. TOOLS AND OBJECTIVES...... 8
III. COMMUNICATION PRACTICES OP THE MEMBERS OP THE 84TH C O N G R E S S ...... 19
IV. INFLUENCES ON COMMUNICATION PATTERNS...... 38
V. ECOLOGY: THE CONGRESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT .... 67
VI. ECOLOGY: THE STATE E N V I R O N M E N T ...... 86
VII. PATTERNS AND AFTERTHOUGHTS...... 94
APPENDIX ...... 105
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 139
- v - LIST OP TABLES
TABLE Page
1. STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR CONGRESSIONAL COMMUNICA- 10 TIONS, 1956 ......
2. TELEVISION AND RADIO RATES, SENATE RECORDING STUDIO, 1956 12
3. METHODS OR MATERIALS USED REGULARLY...... 20
4. TECHNIQUES OF COMMUNICATION CONGRESSMEN USE MOST. 29
5. SOURCES USED IN SELECTING S U B J E C T S ...... 34
6 . MOST EFFECTIVE METHOD OF COMMUNICATING WITH CONSTITUENTS ...... 6l
7. COMPARISONS OF QUANTITIES OF METHODS USED WITH SENIORITY POSITIONS ...... 70
8 . COMPARISONS OF QUANTITIES OF TECHNIQUES USED WITH SENIORITY POSITIONS ...... 71
9. COMPARISONS OF QUANTITIES OF METHODS AND TECH NIQUES USED BY JUNIOR AND SENIOR SENATORS . . .72-73
10. COMPARISONS OF QUANTITIES OF METHODS AND TECH NIQUES USED BY SENATORS WHO CLASSIFY THEMSELVES AS LEADERS OR FOLLOWERS...... 75
11. COMPARISONS OF QUANTITIES OF COMMUNICATION METHODS AND TECHNIQUES USED BY LEADERS OR NON LEADERS OR NATIONAL OPINION ...... 76
12. COMPARISONS OF QUANTITIES OF COMMUNICATION METHODS AND TECHNIQUES USED BY LEADERS OR NON LEADERS AMONG SENATORS ...... 77
13. RELATIONS BETWEEN STATUS OF SENATORS AND METHODS U S E D ...... 80-81
14. RELATIONS BETWEEN STATUS OF SENATORS AND TECHNIQUES U S E D ...... 82-83
13. COMPARISONS OF THE METHODS AND TECHNIQUES USED BY SENATORS FROM STATES WITH DIVERSE POLITICAL SYSTEMS...... 87-88 - vi LIST OP TABLES (CONT'D )
TABLE Page
16. COMPARISONS OF THE METHODS AND TECHNIQUES USED BY SENATORS PROM STATES WITH DIFFERENT POPULA TION CHARACTERISTICS ...... 89
17. RELATIONS BETWEEN THE STATE ENVIRONMENTS OF THE SENATORS AND THE METHODS THEY USE REGULARLY . . 92
18. RELATIONS BETWEEN THE STATE ENVIRONMENTS OF THE SENATORS AND THE TECHNIQUES THEY USE MOST .. . 93
LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDIX
TABLE Page
1. REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF UNITED STATES SENATORS (SEE APPENDIX V ) ...... 130
2. SENIORITY POSITIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE SENATE (SEE APPENDIX V I ) ...... 132
3. DISTRIBUTION OF SENATORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NUMBER OF METHODS AND TECHNIQUES OF COMMUNICA TION USED (SEE APPENDIX V I I I ) ...... 136
- vli' - CHAPTER I
CONGRESSMEN AND THEIR COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS
The thinking citizen who witnessed the presidential
uses of radio during World War II and the congressional uses
of television during the post-war investigations of security
problems knows full well that the national leader who speaks
effectively can have a tremendous effect upon both the attl- y tudes and the behavior of the American people. Because he
felt the nationwide impact of the "trials by television" of
the 1950's, because he saw Senator Estes Kefauver become a national figure almost overnight as a result of the tele vision coverage of his crime investigations, he realizes how much modern methods of communication have increased the public official's ability to influence the thinking of those he was chosen to serve. Therefore, he and his fellow citi zens have cogent reasons for seeking information about the communication practices of their elected representatives.
In Congress, all members share the legislator's age- old concern about keeping in touch with his district. The reasons they communicate may vary as much as their methods, but all of them realize that the member who loses contact with his constituents will also be likely to lose their support.
- 1 - 2
In addition, the long history of congressional pro
visions for written and oral correspondence between the
national legislators and the public bears witness to the im
portance Congress Itself attaches to such informational
activities. The inclusion of provisions for such items as
the joint House-Senate radio-television facility, stationery
allotments, telephone and telegraph services in the annual
appropriations for the legislative branch also suggests that
at least a majority of the members still consider these
practices both necessary and valuable. Therefore, they, too,
may wonder: What are the communication patterns of contempo
rary congressmen?
The student of politics also has reason to be inter
ested in this aspect of congressional behavior.. . He knows
that much of the public's impression of its congressmen is a by-product of the images the members create of themselves in the pursuit of their duties. In corresponding with their constituents, for example, they do much to solidify these impressions. Moreover, he knows that tomorrow's congressmen like their predecessors will probably continue to make ample use of letters and other methods of communication, for, as de Tocqueville observed, the representative in a democracy must incessantly court the voters in order to retain his position.1 Finally, if public interest in the
Democracy in America, ed. by Phillips Bradley, Vol. II (New York: Knopf, 1 9 ^ )* PP. 89-9 0 . 3 activities of Congress has been declining in recent years, as
many have said, the student of politics has reason to ask:
Are the members' communication practices contributing to this
decline?
Regrettably, the answer is not readily available. Par
more studies have been made of the forces that play upon the
legislator as he attempts to voice the opinions of his con
stituents than of the practices he follows in an effort to
Instruct them about issues before Congress and inform them
about his work as their representative. Odegard's and
Herring's pioneer works on pressure politics, for instance, have had many successors. In contrast, despite some perti nent comments in recent books and articles by and about congressmen, the first major work on their communication practices is yet to appear. Even in the cursory review of available sources that follows, this dearth of comprehensive studies is all too apparent.
In their writings, congressmen such as Senators Kennedy,2
Morse,^ and Javits,^ and former Representative Voorhis^ have
2John P. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage (New York: Harper, 1955). 3wayne Morse, "What Do the American People Want from Their Politicians?" in Edmund J. James Lectures in Government 5th Ser. (Urbana: University oT Illinois, 1951J, pp. 9-34. ^Jacob K. Javits, "Congress Wants to Hear From You," American Magazine 153 (June, 1952), 15, 100-103. 5Jerry Voorhls, Confessions of a Congressman (New York: Doubleday, 1946). 4
discussed certain aspects of the congressional communication
problem. For example, Kennedy® and Voorhis? both write about
the problens that face the member who would speak out against
public opinion. In Senator Kennedy's words, the desire to be
re-elected and the demands of his constituents are the major
sources of pressure that "...discourage political courage in
the conscientious congressman."® And Senator Alexander Wiley
(R., Wise.) has written what is probably one of the most com
prehensive chapters about senatorial communication patterns
that has ever flowed from a congressman's pen.9 But these books and articles provide only glimpses rather than detailed descriptions of the members' efforts to communicate.
Nor do the writings of the political scientists and journalists offer much more specific information. Standard works on Congress, such as Ernest S. Griffith's Congress: Its
Contemporary Role and George Galloway's Congress at the Cross roads, afford additional data about the broad communication questions with which congressmen must grapple. The explora tory volumes and research articles written by Bailey and
Samuel,Bertram Gross,11 and various contributors to the
^Kennedy, _op. c i t pp. 7-10. 7voorhis, op. cit., p . 36. ^Kennedy, op. cit., pp. 7 and 9. 9Laughlng With Congress (New York: Crown, 1947), Ch.6 . ^Stephen K. Bailey and Howard D. Samuel, Congress at Work (New York: Henry Holt, 1952). 11"The Legislative Struggle"(New York: McGraw-Hill,1953). 5 American Political Science Review and Public Opinion
Quarterly, for example, have added to our knowledge of
certain practices of some congressmen as they speak or listen
to their constituents. In addition, the members of the press
and the news magazine correspondents supply running commen
taries about current additions to congressional facilities,12
alleged abuses of folding room, franking, and other communi
cation privileges,13 and an occasional book about congres
sional mores and motives, including suggestions about why
congressmen communicate.1^
Notwithstanding the variety in these contributions, in
toto they offer the new congressman little more than a rough
sketch of the communication practices of his fellow members.
Yet he will require a more detailed picture if he is to meet
effectively his obligations to voice, and to instruct, the
popular will, for his ability to do either is closely linked
to his efficiency as a communicator. Even if he chooses to
disregard these obligations, he will have to make some
decisions about how seldom he will communicate and for what
purposes when he does. Whatever his predisposition may be,
he will be in a better position to make a sound decision if
■*-^See Douglas Cater's article: "Every Congressman a Television Star," Reporter, Vol. 12, No. 12 (June 16,1955), pp. 26-28 . ^ S e e Washington Post story of April 4, 1952, p. 2M, entitled: "Congressmen !Plood Nation with 'Propaganda' at Public Cost." i^See William S. White's Citadel: The Story of the U.S. Senate (New York: Harper, 1956), pp. 138-115. 6
he first can see a comprehensive picture of the practices
of other congressmen.
Therefore, an investigation of the communication
practices of the members of Congress has been undertaken in
order to learn: (1) why they communicate; (2 ) what tools of
communication are available to them; (3 ) what types they use,
which they use most, and which regularly; and (4) which state
factors and which congressional factors, if any, influence
their selection among methods.
The term "communication" means the act or effort to
convey facts, ideas, or opinions by written or oral means.
In this study, the phrase "communication practices" has
reference to all of the techniques and methods, such as
debates and reports, telecasts and press releases, that
members employ in contacting their constituents and corre
sponding with them. Their auxiliary tools, such as personal
contacts and trips to the district, will also be considered.
It is assumed that their communication practices are re
lated to their Insecurity and are affected by congressional
influences and factors in their districts that make some
readier than others to experiment with "modern" techniques.
Common experience offers support for this assumption, since
all know that every two years as election time draws near
there Is a sharp increase In the flow of mail from Congress.
Because the regular communication programs of the members thus tend to be disrupted when they are campaigning for re-election, this study has been confined to their practices between rather than during campaigns. It also seemed desirable to impose such a restriction since the
"security situation" of the members is likely to be more normal after the heat of the campaign has been dissipated. CHAPTER II
TOOLS AND OBJECTIVES
Time and again throughout his career each congressman
has to "decide whether or not to try to break into the
headlines...and whether or not his appeals for personal or
policy support should be made 'on the stump,1 over television,
in the magazines or by book and pamphlet, and to which audi ences."1 Before making these decisions he should become acquainted with the provisions Congress has made for the communication programs of its members. It would also be helpful for him to learn about the various reasons why his fellow legislators communicate and the types of methods and techniques that would be appropriate for accomplishing his own communication aims. Therefore, we turn now to a review of the communication provisions Congress has established by law for its members of yesterday and today.
The communication facilities of the members of Congress.
— Up until 1766, no legislature in America "had admitted the public to its sessions"^ and in Congress, it was 1794 before the Senate first opened its chamber to visitors.^
^-Bertram Gross, The Legislative Struggle (New York; McGraw-Hill, 1953), p T ^ S T ^ 2ciara Hannah Kerr, The Origin and Development of the United States Senate (Ithaca, New York; Andrus and cEurch, T895T7 P 7 1 5 T ---- 3Kerr, op. cit., p. 40. - 8 - 9 However, statutory provisions for written correspondence be
tween legislators and the public received early congressional
approval, for the franking privilege was first granted to it members of the Continental Congress.
In the subsequent century and three quarters, Congress
developed elaborate public galleries for its guests, con
tinued to frank its members' mail, and gradually made many
other tools of communication available to them. By 1956,
seven of these tools exclusive of clerk hire were included
among the facilities provides for both representatives and
senators. Except for the amounts, which are larger for mem bers of the Senate, the provisions for representatives to the
84th Congress listed in Table 1 are typical for both.
Although it may seem incongruous, the rental allowance for a district office has been included in this list of "communi cation" facilities because many senators and representatives. reported that their district bases were especially useful communication centers. Twenty-six per cent of the 78 congressmen who were interviewed, for instance, ranked
"trips to the district" or district office staffs as their most effective methods of ascertaining local public opinion.
Perhaps the clerk hire allowance should also be added to the list since the staff members of many congressmen, such as
4Joseph Nathan Kane, Famous First Facts (New York: H . W. Wilson Company, 1950;, p. 142. 10 TABLE 1
STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR CONGRESSIONAL COMMUNICATIONS, 1936
Franking privilege Covers the free mailing of public documents printed by order of Congress and any mail matter__ upon official business.
tationery allowance $1200.00 per Representative for each regular session.
Stamps, air mail and An amount not exceeding $200 (per special delivery fiscal year) for the mailing of postal matter (involving^) official business.
Telegrams Wordage not to exceed 20,000 words a year.
Long distance telephone Toll charges on official calls calls not to exceed 3,000 minutes a year.
Office space in congres Rentals not exceeding $900 per sional district annum.
Electrical/mechanical Each member may purchase certain equipment such as address approved types of electrical or ing machines, typewriters, mechanical office equipment not and duplicating machines exceeding a total cost of $2 ,500.
Source: U. S. Congress, House, Information for Representa tives to the 84th Cong., 2d sessl (Washington, 1955^ pp.1-2 .
Douglas of Illinois and Gwinn of New York, spend much of their time on congressional correspondence.
Members also have the services of the Senate and House folding rooms and recording studies at their disposal. Huge quantities of mail and public documents are folded and stuffed 11
Into envelopes for congressmen free of charge. In 1951, for
example, the House folders handled 16,392,000 pieces of mail,
even though 145 representatives did not use the service at
all...^ The studios afford the senators and representatives
s ' assistance "in making disk, film, and tape recordings..."0
Congress itself provides for the carq, maintenance,
operation, and other expenses of these studios."7 However,
the congressmen are required to pay for the equipment and
material used In filming or recording their programs. The
current charges for this service are listed in Table 2.
Keeping such facilities available at a reasonable cost
is of special importance to the legislator of limited means.
He and his colleagues are also aided by their political
parties and by the executive departments. The Democratic
and Republican congressional campaign committees supply them
with speeches, radio and television time, and the services
of paid photographers. These partisan arrangements are of
Indirect interest only, however, since we are chiefly con cerned with the members' practices during the months be tween campaigns.
^ Congressmen Flood Nation with ‘Propaganda1 at Public Cost, Folding Room Check Shows," Washington Post, April 13, 1952, p. 2M. ^Legislative Appropriation Bill, 1957, U.S. 84th Cong., 2d sess.V H.R. Report No. ddrd (1956),”^To. ^Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 1957, Hearings7 84th Cong., 2d sess., Senate, Committee on Appropriations (Washington: 195&), P. 42. 12
TABLE 2
TELEVISION AND RADIO RATES, SENATE RECORDING STUDIO, 1956
Television Rates (in Dollars)
1 min., 1 camera, 1 print $4.44 5 min., 1 camera, 1 print 9.99 10 min., 1 camera, 1 print 19.95 Each additional minute - $2.00 each per camera.
Editing -$5.00 per hour Inserts - 2.00 per hour Teleprompter- 2.00 (up to 2 min.); 5.00 (over 5 rain. per teleprompter
Radio Rates (in Dollars)
Tape - 7i ft ./sec. 600 ft. 15 min. Blank $2.33 Recorded $4.80 300 ft. 7lr min. Blank 1.02 Recorded 2.27 Service charges - $1.50 each, Reel - $1.75* to Record $6.00
Discs - 16 inch Single Paced 14:30 min. $3.50/331/3 Broadcast 12 inch Single Paced up to 7 min.3.00/331/3 Broadcast
Dub-ins $.50 each Editing $10.00 per hour
Source: "Rules and Regulations Relating to the operation of the Senate Recording Studio," (MSS in Office of Senate Com mittee on Rules and Administration, Washington, D.C.), pp. 2 and 3 .
In contrast, the provision of departmental publications
for distribution by the members is of direct concern, since
these "free" pamphlets are used by many congressmen through
out the year. Those which the Department of Agriculture makes available are popular in all offices. As a result
they probably are sent to more American homes each year than 13
any other government bulletins except, perhaps, the infant
care pamphlets issued by the Department of Health Education,
and Welfare.
In summary, as Congress convened'’in January, 1956, the
communication provisions it had made for its members fell
into three categories:
1. Facilities, which included district office space, electrical/mechanical office equipment, and radio and television recording studios.
2. Supplies, which included stationery, telephone, and telegraph allowances, air mail stamps, and franked envelopes for regular mail.
3. Services, which included the assistance of both professional and clerical staff members and fold ing room personnel.
Government bulletins and pamphlets are also counted among the members' communication supplies, even though they get them from the executive branch instead of from Congress itself.
The members of the 84th Congress thus had both old and new tools at their disposal. The franking privilege had been available to the members of the very first Congress.
The joint radio-television facility that was abandoned at the end of the 1st session of the 84th, was a 20th century innovation established in 1948. Its successors — the
Individual House and Senate recording studios — were even newer, for it was 1956 before they first appeared on Capitol
Hill. In combination, the old and new tools provided both senators and representatives with well-filled communication kits. 14
In making this review of their facilities, however, it
became apparent that all members do not make equal use of
them. By noting the purposes for which congressmen commu
nicate and the different methods and techniques they might
use in trying to achieve them, it may be possible to discern
some of the reasons for these differences. Even more impor
tant, such an investigation of their communication aims and means should provide a useful background for the survey of
the practices of the members of the 84th Congress, which follows in Chapter III.
Aims and means of communicating. — What purposes do these congressmen have in mind then as they take up their pens, enter the House or Senate recording studio, or dial long distance? They communicate with their constituents in order to:
1. Enhance their reelection chances by creating a
good impression or by making their names widely
known.
2. Answer specific constituent demands by telling
how they are handling the requests or by explain
ing why they cannot comply with them.
3* Justify positions on votes they must cast
especially when their positions differ sharply
from prevailing community sentiment.
4. Win public support for a policy they are trying 15 to put through, that is, to "draw forth responses
which in turn they represent. 5. Maintain a sense of contact with the voters
because it gives them the feeling of "freedom
and importance...(they) thought (they) would find
when (they) got to Washington (but rarely do). "9
6 * Educate the public. Although some members may send
out material about problems before Congress solely
for educational purposes, this communication
practice appears to be valued chiefly as it aids
the member of Congress in his efforts "to put
through a policy,...to solve a problem, and to be
re-elected.
7- Sound out local public opinion about business
before Congress.
8 . Keep abreast of the problems of major concern
to the private citizens, community leaders, and
Interest groups in th£a- constituencies.
With these communication objectives in mind, let us note the tools congressmen have for achieving them and try
^Lewis Anthony Dexter, "Congressmen Draw Forth and Emphasize Responses Which in Turn They Represent,"(MSS at Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.), p.3. ^Lewis Anthony Dexter, "What Do Congressmen Hear: Hie Mall," Public Opinion Quarterly (hereinafter cited as POQ), XX, 1 (S^IrigT I§55), 137 IQErnest S . Griffith, Congress; Its Contemporary Role (New York: New York University Press7-T95J-), P* a y u . 16
to decide which they might use for each purpose. They have
approximately 19 techniques and methods of oral and written
correspondence at their disposal. Some, of course, are more
appropriate for one purpose than another. Therefore all 19
have been listed individually, then they have been grouped
under the major purposes of communication for which they can
be used.
Methods and techniques of communication;
1. Oral
debates (3*4,6) type meetings (3,4,6) interviews (la, 2 ,5 ) radio broadcasts (la,lb,4,$) meetings (2 ,5,6 ) speeches (la,2 ,4,6 ) panel discussions (3*4,6) telephone calls (2 ,5 } personal contacts (3*4,5) telecasts (la,lb,4,6 ) question-and-answer trips to district (2 ,3, 4,5,6) 2. Written
government bulletins (lb) press releases (la,lb,3 ,4,6 ) letters (la,lb,2 ,3,4,5,6 ) public opinion polls .(lb, newsletters (la,lb,2 ,3,4, 3,4,5,6 ) 5,6) Record reprints (lb,3*4,£) newspaper advertisements written reports (la,lb,3,6 ) (lb,4)
Purposes for which these methods and techniques can be used:
1. To enhance reelection chances:
a. by creating a good impression
interviews letters speeches newsletters radio broadcasts press releases telecasts written reports
•^The numbers in parentheses i'efer to the various purposes for which each can be used that are listed on pages 16-18. ] b. by making their names widely known
radio broadcasts newspaper advertisements telecasts press releases government bulletins public opinion polls letters Record reprints newsletters written reports
To answer specific constituent demands
interviews trips to district meetings letters speeches newsletters telephone calls
To justify positions on votes they must cast:
debates newsletters panel discussions press releases personal contacts public opinion polls question-and-answer-type Record reprints meetings written reports trips to district letters
To win public support for a policy they are trying to put through:
debates telecasts panel discussions trips to district personal contacts letters question-and-answer-type newsletters meetings newspaper advertisements radio broadcasts press releases speeches public opinion polls Record reprints
To maintain a sense of contact with the voters:
Interviews trips to district meetings letters personal contacts newsletters telephone calls public opinion polls
To educate the public:
debates trips to district meetings letters panel discussions newsletters question-and-answer-type press releases meetings public opinion polls radio broadcasts Record reprints speeches written reports telecasts 18 7. To sound out local public opinion:
interviews trips to district meetings letters personal contacts newsletters telephone calls public opinion polls
8 . To keep abreast of the problems of major concern in
their constituencies:
interviews trips to district meetings letters personal contacts newsletters telephone calls
Through the franking privilege, stationery, telephone, and telegraph allowances, clerk hire and office rental pro visions, and its House and Senate recording studios. Congress covers part or all of the costs of most of these methods and techniques its members use. CHAPTER III
COMMUNICATION PRACTICES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE 84TH CONGRESS
With the wide variety of facilities at their dis
posal, what communication programs do the members of Congress
pursue? Which methods do they use regularly, which often?
Do they use similar or dissimilar techniques as they seek to
Inform the public and sound out its opinions? Let us see.
The communication methods congressmen use regularly.—
* Approximately 20 senators and 100 representatives who served
in the 84th Congress indicated which tools of communication
they use regularly and which most.1 Among the eleven methods
listed in Table 3, those more members use regularly than any
others are press releases, government pamphlets, and news
letters. Meetings and letters are next in rank, followed by
television in the Senate.
The congressmen from both houses continually send out
press releases, which indicates that congressional apprecia
tion of newspaper publicity is high. In 1956, for example,
32 of the 33 senators, and 4l of the 45 representatives in p the base sample were issuing press releases. Approximately
half of each group sends them out "as news warrants."
1-See Appendix I for descriptions of the survey method and the characteristics of the congressmen who replied. 2see Appendix I for a description of the composition of this base sample. - 19 - 20 Another 31 congressmen indicated that their releases go out
daily, weekly, or at other regular intervals.
TABLE 3
METHODS OR MATERIALS USED REGULARLY
•'•""51------Senators Representatives Totals
Government Pamphlets 13 68 81
Items from The Record 8 36 45
Letters 10 52 62
Meetings 11 48 59 Newsletters 14 58 72
Newspaper advertisements 4 4
Press releases 17 76 93 Public opinion polls 4 34 38
Radio 13 41 54
TV 10 41 51
Others 2 6 8
None or ■ • — 1 ) No answer 4) 5
Source: Questionnaire responses from 127 congresmen who served during 2d session, 84th Congress. In this table and all those which follow the congressmen will be those who served in this Congress unless otherwise noted.
The contemporary congressman, therefore, apparently agrees with Edmund Burke's oft-quoted remark: "There are three estates in Parliament, but in the reporters' gallery 21
yonder sits a Fourth Estate more Important far than they
all." And as Paul Wooton, Dean of the Southern press corps,
said recently, "Correspondents no longer are regarded as
'miserable slanderers' or 'venal scribblers.' They now have
prestige and seem to be living up to the standard which
Edmund Burke set for them."3
Radio and television now have established places on
the roster of congressional communication devices, but there
still is wide disparity in their popularity in each chamber
and among the members of each. The new House and Senate
radio and television facilities, like the joint facility
that preceded them, provide recordings and films to scores
of members at a fraction of their commercial cost.
The estimates about the number of members who use the studios regularly vary from article to article: 140 members of the House and 60 members of the Senate, according to a
U.S. News article,^ and one-third of the representatives and nearly half of the senators according to a New York Times 5 reporter. Somewhere between these two fall the figures of the present Assistant Director of the Senate Recording Studio,
Mrs. Helen Coar, who was formerly the Studio Director of the original Joint Senate-House Recording Faculty. According to her estimate, in 1956, 38 senators and 150 representatives
^''Prestige of Press Has Increased on the Hill," Roll Call, June 28, 1956, p. 14. ^"Some Votes Are Made This Way," U.S. News and World Report, 38 (July 15, 1955), 71. PRussell Baker, "Congress Flocks to TV Bandwagon," New York Times, June 27, 1955, P. ^3. 22
were doing weekly reports by radio or television. "In the
course of any session," she said, "we get almost every member
for at least one program--whether it be to aid another member
by participating in a show, as in the case of Speaker Sam,
or to do a show for the Red Cross or some other similar C show." Senators Gore (D., Tenn.), Long (D., La.), and
Mundt (R., S. Dak.) came into the studio and made broadcasts
or telecasts during the hour Mrs. Coar spent with me.
Regular radio broadcasts were reported in 45 of the 93
senate offices visited and the assistants in 29 of these
offices said that one to five minute news shorts for tele
vision or 14 minute telecasts are prepared regularly by
their employers. Forty-one of the 105 representatives vfbo
acknowledged the March questionnaire stated that they make
both radio and television programs regularly. Nevertheless
some members, such a3 Senator Aiken (R., Vt.) and Senator
Mansfeld (D., Mont.), make little or no use of these 7 publicity tools at any time.
Although many congressmen prepare broadcasts at their '
own Initiative, telecasts are prepared and sent out "by request only" in most offices. Even where they are filmed
at the member's own request, they are sent out ordinarily on
a sporadic basis instead of at regular intervals.
^Interview with Mrs. Coar on July 18, 1956. 7"Some Votes Are Made 15113 Way," U.S. News, p. 70. 23 Unlike radio and television, public opinion polls are
not widely used in either house. Barely 50 of the 198
congressmen who answered my question, namely, 17 senators
and 34 representatives, employ polls. Furthermore, one
writer has even suggested that the pollsters in Congress g are exclusively Midwesterners. Here, however, it is
necessary to disagree. Although 10 of the 17 poll-taking
senators Interviewed for this study did come from the
Midwest, the balance were drawn from the South, New England,
and the Far West.
Probably many congressmen refrain from using polls at
all or on more than rare occasions because of their high
cost. An assistant to Senator Clifford Case (R., N.J.) said,
"The Senator does not take polls because the gain is notin
proportion to the cost." On the other hand, even the members
who do take polls, like Representative Joe Holt (R., Calif.),
often limit the number they send out because of the expense
involved. For example, Mr. Holt said, "It costs me about
$3,000 for the preparation and tabulation of the two-page poll and covering letter which I mail out annually to every registered voter in my district. I would send out more but for the cost."
A recent article in the New York Times indicated that newsletters, like polls, are not widely used in Congress.9
°Felix Morley, "The Issues as Voters See Them," Nation's Business, Vol. 43, No. 8 (Aug., 1955), 13.; ^Russell Baker, "My dear constituent..." New York Times Magazine. May 1, 1955* PP. 14 and 17. 24
This statement is not in accordance with the findings of this
study. Moreover, despite a general impression among senato
rial assistants that newsletters are used chiefly by repre
sentatives, they are popular on both sides of "The Hill."
Thirty-four of the 78 congressmen in the basic survey
group - that is the group whose members participated in
interviews lasting at least one hour per member - use news
letters. Ten of the 14 senators, and 17 of the 20 represent
atives who issue them do so regularly, the rest irregularly.
Brief interviews with 60 other Senate staff members revealed
that 26 of their senators, or almost half of the group, also
send them out.10 Conversations with Mr. Sidney Yudain,
editor of Roll Call - "The Newspaper of Capitol Hill" - and
secretary to Congressman Morano(R., Conn.), along with a
check of the author's spring questionnaire responses, disclosed that at least 78 more representatives also use newsletters. This means that approximately 25 per cent of the members of the 84th Congress were newsletter writers.
Although these figures for the House may be low, those for the Senate probably are not since they are based on replies obtained from 93 of the 96 Senate offices.
A recent article by Larston D. Farrar, Washington editor of The American Press, lends support to these findings. Mr.
Farrar wrote: "The closest estimate as to how many repre
10See Appendix IV for summary of these short interview questions and answers. 25
sentatives and senators send out regular messages to their
constituents, through the weekly newsletter or message, Is
about 200 out of the 531 legislators on both sides of
Capitol Hill.1,11
As noted in Table 3 above, 11 of the 22 senators and
48 of the 105 representatives who responded to the March
questionnaire resort regularly to meetings as methods of
communication. They do so both by invitation and as a
matter of policy, if these comments are typical:
I attend as many (of the programs of the]) Political Clubs in my District as I can...I am also frequently invited to many labor gatherings. Edward A. Garmatz, M.C. 3d District, Maryland
•s As the Congressman-at-Large from the State of Connecticut for the past ten years, I have been back in Connecticut for meetings, banquets, con ventions, and other affairs every weekend with the exception of seven. Antoni N. Sadlak, M.C. At Large, Connecticut
As a Senator I have attempted to maintain close personal contact with my constituents by appear ing, whenever possible, before meetings in my State. Sam J. Ervin, Jr. U.S. Senator, North Carolina
In terms of the number of members who employ them, letters rank fourth and fifth among the methods used regularly by representatives and senators, respectively.
Their high rank is not surprising in view of a comment heard time and again in the offices visited. Numerous
11"Press Magazine Takes A Look At Congressmen's News letters," reprinted in Roll Call, August 25, 1955, P. 6. 26 congressional assistants noted that as a matter of policy
they try to answer or acknowledge all state or district
mall within 24 hours of its receipt.
Representative Clarence Brown (R., Ohio) not only has
his mail acknowledged immediately, he also tries to see 1? all of it before the replies are written. No senatorial
assistant made the latter claim for his ’’boss," but accord
ing to Senator Kefauver, "...most members now have three
secretaries devoting the greater part of their time to the
bundles of mail delivered to each office four times a d a y . " - 1-3
These comments lend support to Lewis Dexter's conclusion that
the representatives are inclined to read their own mail, but
most senators rarely see it.1^ Further evidence of the
popularity of correspondence and that of government bulletins
is found in this fact: Letters with a personal touch plus a
wide variety of "free" departmental publications comprise the
bulk of the material sent out in mass mailings from con
gressional offices. Graduation congratulation messages,
anniversary notes, Christmas cards, letters of condolence
all help remind the voters that their congressman Is personally interested in them.
In many cases these "personal" letters are accompanied by a pertinent government pamphlet such as a cook book with
■^Interview with Miss Rose Kincaid, Secretary to Mr. Brown, June 28, 1956. ^^Kefauver and Levin, og. cit., p. 172. ^"What Congressmen Hear: The Mail," POQ, XX, 1 (Spring, 1952), 22. 27 a wedding note. This approach is illustrated in the following
letter from the Honorable Clark W. Thompson (D., Tex.):
Clark W. Thompson Member Committee 9th District, Texas on Agriculture
Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
Dear Neighbors,
Congratulations on your wedding! Mrs. Thompson and I have found this cook book very useful. I hope you will like it, too.
Prom your friend and Congressman
/signed/ Clark W. Thompson
The cook book referred to is entitled: Family Fare...food
management and recipes. It is one of approximately 650
publications made available for distribution by members of
Congress through the Department of Agriculture. These
bulletins cover 31 subjects and although most of them are
primarily of interest to our farm population, a new pamphlet
about gardening in the city promises to add the names of many urban dwellers to the long list of rural recipients.
Although some members send out such publications only by request and some do not make any mass mailings, all of the 33 senators and 36 representatives queried do use these
"give-a-ways" at least occasionally. Eighteen of the former and 32 of the latter send out one or more of these pamphlets as a regular practice. Ifoe senators do so primarily upon 28 receipt of requests. In contrast, over half of the repre
sentatives do so primarily on their own initiative. Their
practices may vary here largely because of the differences
between their respective constituencies.
Items from The Record are also mailed to constituents,
separately or as enclosures In letters, by many of the
congressmen who make a similar use of government pamphlets.
But two of the eight senators, and five of the 36 representa
tives, who use Record reprints regularly do not make regular
use of pamphlets.
However, newspaper advertisements are not among the
tools used regularly in either house. No senators included
them among their regular methods; the four representatives who did include them also make use of an exceptionally large number of other methods regularly-as many as seven or more apiece.
We turn next to a consideration of the communication techniques congressmen use most. "Personal contacts,” and
"trips to the district," mailing lists, and their state or district offices will also be considered here. Even though, by definition, these are auxiliary tools rather than communi cation techniques proper, the members frequently use them, both in the process of conveying ideas and getting informa tion.
Communication techniques congressmen use most- In asking about the techniques they use most, the objective was 29
to learn whether they place primary reliance upon personal or
group contacts. Forty-two members did not observe this dis
tinction in their replies so they designated unrelated items
such as correspondence and polls. The remaining 85 senators
and. representatives apparently give almost equal preference
to the personal and group techniques: speeches and personal
contacts are first and second among those both used most.
This is particularly interesting since only three of the
eight techniques specified in the question and listed in
Table 4, do not involve group contacts. Furthermore, over
half of the senators polled include but one of the five
"group" techniques among those they employ most.
TABLE 4
TECHNIQUES OF COMMUNICATION CONGRESSMEN USE MOST
22 10b Senators Representatives Totals Debates 1 2 3
Interviews* 4 34 38
Panel discussions 3 21 24
Personal contacts* 12 67 79 Que st ion-and-answer- type meetings 5 45 30
Speeches 16 77 93 Telephone calls* 8 40 48
Written reports 7 44 51
No answer 2 3 3 Others 5 37 42 Source: Questionnaire responses from 127 congressmen. ♦Personal techniques. 30
The uses of these techniques are self-evident. However,
the reader might note that: (l) the "telephone calls" cate
gory encompasses local and long distance calls, (2) committee
hearings and monthly, annual, and end-of-session reports are
included among the "written reports" members use, and (3)
the term "personal contacts" has reference to the personal
acquaintances and friends of the congressmen.
Another facet of Table k that bears noting is the dif
ference between the total number of techniques used most by
one-third or more of the members of each house. The senators
use three most, the representatives five. The latter add
"question-and-answer meetings" and "written reports" to the
trilogy of speeches, personal contacts, and telephone calls
both groups employ. The broader scope of the senators'
"districts" and duties may prevent them from spending the
time required to use the former two techniques as much as the members of the House.
In contrast, congressmen from both sides of "The Hill" find innumerable reasons for returning to their states both during and between sessions. If they are East Coast con gressmen and their constituents expect to see them often — the people of Connecticut insist we go home every weekend, one staff member complained — trips to the district may be come irksome. Nevertheless, these trips are also a tool of communication: a tool that is found In almost every con gressman's kit. 31 All of the senators contacted return to their states at
least once during every session. Nine of those whose states
are near the capital get back to them each week and the
largest group of members — namely, 20 — return home be
tween six and ten times per session. Furthermore, over 75
per cent of the senators and almost 90 per cent of the rep
resentatives interviewed maintain state or district offices
as "home" bases. They use them as channels to their con
stituents and as convenient centers for receiving visitors
when they are on home grounds.
Since the members are authorized to spend no more than
$1,200 each per annum for their offices, most are located
in United States Post Offices or other federal buildings, but not all congressmen follow the rule. For Instance, until his recent retirement from the Senate, Senator Lehman used an elaborate suite of offices in New York City which were duly furnished with plush oriental rugs. Representative
Martha W. Griffiths (D., Mich.) finds her mobile, trailer office most efficient, while Mr. McCulloch (4th District,
Ohio) prefers to use the county court houses when he holds his annual "conferences" in the district.
Other items such as reprints from The Record, long distance telephone calls, air mail letters, and telegrams are also included in the congressional communications picture.
The members may place sore reliance on these techniques and 32
methods than on any others, yet detailed information about
their use of them is not available.
In making this study, besides investigating the methods
and techniques of communication that congressmen use, there
was an interest in finding out how they felt about the
relative usefulness of their various resources. Another
aim was to get some impressions about the groups and indi
viduals to whom they listen and speak.
The members' assessments of their facilities and
practices. — Most of the members consider the present
legislative provisions for stationery, telegrams, and telephone time, and for the House and Senate radio-television studios adequate. Some members, such as Senator Chavez
(D., N. Mex.) and Representative Kearns (R., Pa.), dis agreed. Several staff assistants suggested that a member's distance from the capital or the proximity of his campaign for reelection might cause him to have such a viewpoint.
In a substantial number of the offices visited, letter- writing and prompt handling of the mail, mass mailings of government pamphlets, distribution of newsletters, and the issuance of numerous press releases were mentioned most often as important methods of keeping in touch with constituents.
Directly or indirectly, the congressmen gave further indications of how they assess their communication facilities and practices in their answers to the following questions: 33
1. What sources of information do you draw upon in
trying to select the subject matter about which
you communicate with your constituents?
2 . If you believe a pending bill is of considerable
importance to your constituents even though they
may not realize it, what methods of communication
would help you most in your efforts to Inform
them about the facts or stakes involved in it?
(Here, of course, we were also concerned about
whether or not the members were willing to take
the Initiative in trying to Inform their constitu
ents about such bills.)
3. In trying to follow public opinion, how do you
cope with the difficult problem of trying to find
out what views your constituents have?
4. What types of audiences receive your communications?
5. Hirough what media do you attempt to reach them?
Hie responses to question one, which appear in Table 5, show that actions by local organizations and conversations with community leaders plus letters from constitutents sug gest communication topics to more members of each house than any other sources. Editorials or other material in the local newspapers also rate high in usage. In contrast, only about a fifth as many references are made to the member’s own judgment or congressional action on Issues as sources. 34
TABLE 5
SOURCES USED IN SELECTING SUBJECTS ABOUT WHICH THE MEMBERS COMMUNICATE WITH THEIR CONSTITUENTS
22 105 Senators Representatives Totals Actions by local 7 31 38 organizations
Comments by party 1 .14 15 leaders
Conversations with 3 40 43 community leaders
Editorials, local and 6 24 30 national
Letters from 6 58 64 constituents
Local newspapers 5 32 37
Presidential messages 2 20 22
Surveys of public - 12 12 opinion
Other sources: 8 39 47
Congressional action 4 17 21
Current events - 4 4
Own judgment 9 13
Miscellaneous - 9 9 No answer 4 12 16
Source: Questionnaire responses from 127 congressmen. More representatives than senators indicated that they
take the initiative in trying to inform their constituents
about important pending legislation even though its impor
tance might not be generally recognized in their state or
district. Even those who do take the initiative are
selective in choosing the bills they will publicize. Con gressman Byrd (D., W. Va.) said, "I would not take time to try to inform them about the Hell's Canyon project which has no direct impact on them. They see no direct impact on them from the foreign aid bill and similar matters either, but they are so important I feel it is my duty to exercise leadership here and make them realize their importance."
Mr. H. S. Garber, secretary to Representative Ellsworth
(R., Ore.), reported that the Congressman would not try to inform them about "minor" bills; but for "major" bills he would use the wire services, radio and television programs, and his newsletter. And according to Mr. Frank McCulloch, administrative assistant to Senator Douglas of Illinois, the Senator may get out gigantic mailings if he thinks an issue is vital. To illustrate, McCulloch mentioned that
Douglas had just sent out a four-page report on agricultural programs as seen from a Democratic point of view.
Congressmen consider mail important both as a source of public opinion and as a method of informing the public.
When asked what methods and sources help them discover what 36
public opinion is in their constituencies, 28 of the 33
senators, and 37 of the 43 representatives, who replied
said, "The mail." Personal contacts and trips to the
district were cited as sources by the second and third
largest groups of members from each house. When they want
to inform the public about issues, senators prefer the
press, radio, and letters in that order, and the repre
sentatives rely upon the press, newsletters, and letters.
Furthermore, more members prefer to communicate with
their constituents directly or send them news through local
outlets rather than rely on indirect channels, such as those
provided by the Washington offices of the national mass
media. This is illustrated by the types of outlets they
use for their press releases and the nature of the audiences
to whom they address their newsletters. The local press is
the primary recipient of congressional press releases. Local radio stations and the national wire services tie for third place. In the newsletter sphere, Senator Symington (D.,Mo.) is the only one among the JQ senators and representatives interviewed who sends his to any of the mass communication outlets in the capital. More members send their newsletters to private groups or individuals than to any other audiences.
Party outlets and the local weeklies and dailies are next on the list.
Numerous congressmen on both sides of Capitol Hill use mailing lists. Percentage-wise, however, they are 37 slightly more prevalent in the Senate than in the House: 48
per cent of the 33 senators, as against 42 per cent of the
45 representatives, interviewed employ them. The list may
include the names of only a handful of the member's personal
acquaintances or it may encompass as many names as his
assistants could cull from the local voting lists or tele
phone books. In size, those of the senators averaged 20,600 names each, and the range was from 35 to 100,000. Naturally, the lists of the representatives were smaller on the average.
Their range was from 16 to 175*000, and the average list in cluded the names of 13,400 individuals and groups. CHAPTER IV
INFLUENCES ON COMMUNICATION PATTERNS
The preceding survey of the communication practices of
the members of Congress revealed great diversity in their
selection among methods and in the frequency of use of
those chosen. How can one account for these differences?
A review of the major steps and factors involved in the
development of a communications program will provide an
introduction to the reasons the members' practices differ.
Their implicit or explicit attitudes about communicating
set the bounds within which their programs are developed.
With these attitudes for background, they decide upon the
purposes for which they will communicate. These may range from the specific objective of getting their names before the public, by issuing newsletters, to the general objective of reaching as wide an audience as possible, by mass mailing the newsletters to all persons listed in their local telephone books.
After settling upon their objectives, these two consid erations will play a part In their selection among methods:
1. The relative advantages and disadvantages of the
old and new methods and techniques of communication.
2. The utility of these old and new tools in helping
- 38 - 39 them achieve each of their Individual communication
alms.
Their estimates about the appropriateness of each of these tools will probably be conditioned by congressional influ ences, and by their concepts of the proper role of the legislator as well.
In brief, then, the communications behavior of congress men is a product of diverse circumstances, conditions, and attitudes. Among these influences the Washington setting,
"grass roots" practices, and the senators and representa tives 1 personal reactions and attitudes are probably of major importance. Consequently, no one can hope to make a real istic appraisal of the reasons their practices differ without first considering the conditions of their employment; namely, the demands placed upon them by their congressional workload, the requests of constituents, and their own interpretations of their obligations as legislators. All three, of course, are interrelated.
Before examining the utility question as one possible
Influence upon their choice of methods, it is in order to survey another: their employment conditions. In the latter connection, their camnunlcatlon attitudes will be considered in connection with their concepts of the roles members of
Congress should play. Attitudes toward communication programs and concepts of legislative responsibilities. — The congressmen or their 40 public relations directors usually make their decisions about
the techniques or devices they will use within the framework
of a general approach to communications. A3 Senator
Dworshak's assistant said, "We work on the philosophy you can
have too much publicity.’1 Consequently, it is not surpris
ing that this senator makes radio and television programs
only on special occasions, takes no polls, and gets back to
Idaho only once a session. Another senator, Anderson of New
Mexico, follows the opposite policy but for the same implic
it reason: "It is in keeping with the characteristics of
our state," his assistant said, "to keep the public con
stantly informed about his activities."
In other words, scoe members believe it preferable to
communicate with their constituents but rarely and then
chiefly by mail, while others favor frequent use of every available method of comaunication, be it old or new. The former apparently accept the maxim that "Silence is golden," while the latter prefer the "Madison Avenue" precept: What you say or send Is not as Important as the fact that you keep saying or sending something.
The actions of a first term representative and those of the senator who has served longer In both houses of
Congress combined than any other member — he was elected to the House of Representatives when his state entered the
1Interview with Mr. Ken Tyrer, Press Agent for Senator Dworshak, August, 1936. 41
Union in 1912 — Illustrate the differences. During one
session of the 84th Congress, Representative Orvin B. Fjare
(R., Mont.) sent out a farm questionnaire to his constitu
ents and in the opening paragraph said in part, "Your opinions will help me represent you more effectively." At that time, Mr. Fjare also was making regular weekly radio and television programs and was Issuing press items as news 2 warranted. In contrast, after 15 years in the House and 30 in the
Senate Arizona's Carl Hayden prides himself most perhaps on his ability "to keep his mouth shut when it would do him no good to open lt."3 He never issues press releases. He makes no radio broadcasts. He makes telecasts only during campaigns and but rarely even then. Nevertheless, "Hayden maintains a continuing interest in the folks back home, and the moment ..4 Congress adjourns he hustles home to Arizona."
The members' concepts of the role of a legislator and of their job responsibilities also influence their communication decisions. fHiis fact is well illustrated in the following excerpts from a speech by Representative Timothy P. Sheehan
(R., 111.), entitled:
2Interview with Waldo Spangelo, Secretary to Mr. Fjare, July 17, 1956. ^interview with Paul R. Eaton, Administrative Assistant to Senator Hayden, July 18, 1956. "Carl Hayden Lacks Earmarks of Typical Capitol Congressman," Arizona Daily Star, April 7, 1957, P. 2. "* ^Loc. cit. 42
How a Congressman Should Represent His Constituents.
I am of the political philosophy that a congress man should vote to express the will of the majority of his constituents, unless in his own conscience, he Is convinced that such majority opinion would be con trary to the general welfare of the country. In my...case, I feel that the will or opinion of the majority of the people on the northwest side of Chicago can be readily ascertained on practically all major issues before Congress. I...have used the following methods of ascertaining my constituents' views: 1. By carefully reading all letters sent to me in Washington. I might add, I answer every one of these letters. 2. By frequent trips home, where I talk to people and arrange to meet personally constituents Interested in stating their views. 3. By attending a town hall meeting, where I reported to the people and also asked them their opinions on Important questions before Congress. 4. By conducting a postcard survey, asking 2,600 people their opinions on certain major Issues... 3. By talking to precinct captains of my own Republican Party... 6. By writing letters to certain individuals whom I feel have their fingers on the thinking of the people, asking these individuals to tell me their neighbors' thinking. lhere are several other minor methods of ascer taining the majority opinion, but I feel the six methods outlined above constitute the major manner of finding out the majority will of my constituents. It is also a part of my political philosophy that a Congressman should report to his constituents and Inform them of his work in Congress, of his votes on vital Issues, Important speeches he makes, and to report any facts or Information crossing a Congressman's desk which is not readily known or available to his constituents. I accomplish this last objective by issuing a newsletter every 10 days, which is mailed to 3,000 people in the Eleventh Congressional District. Also, through the kindness and public splrltedness of many of the local community papers in my district, who publish my news releases, I keep the great majority of my people informed as to the conduct of their Congressman .... 43 By following such a political philosophy of repre senting the will of the majority of my constituents, and by reporting my actions to them, I best feel that I am carrying out the ideals of our Constitution by having, as Hamilton and Madison stated, 'the cool and deliberate sense of the community* * *prevail over the views of the rulers.'5
In briefer form the following excerpts from letters sent to me by Representative Clifford Davis (D., Tenn.) and
Senator John W. Bricker (R., Ohio) also reveal how the mem bers1 concepts of their responsibilities as legislators affect their communications behavior:
After looking at your congressional question naire, I wonder how I ever remained in office 16 years because I seem to be so unorthodox.-.-.- I think the best politics is day by day serious, conscientious attention to duty and have never felt impelled to ask pressure groups how they felt about legislation. Anybody can approach me for the dis cussion of any public matter and through constant contact through metropolitan papers in my District, my position has been pretty well established over the years *" Clifford Davis, M.C. 9th District, Tennessee
In general,...I write letters to people in answer to their own communications. I put out press releases as a means of helping reporters get the facts straight on matters to which I am giving atten tion. ..Either I or someone on my staff sees everyone who calls at the office. Without consciously selecting modes of communi cation I feel I keep well informed of what my con stituents want although I may not do as well in keeping them advised of why they cannot have every thing they ask for." John W. Bricker U.S. Senator, Ohio
^Congressional Record, 82d Cong., 1st sess., 97:15 (Oct. 157 1951), A6694. 44
Beside their own concepts of their roles, the members'
personal reactions to environmental pressures and the weight
of the congressional workload both have some effect upon
their communication activities. Therefore, in this picture of the reasons the communication practices of congressmen
differ, the Washington setting merits consideration next.
The Washington setting.-* The demands upon a congress
man's time limit his ability to consider or respond to
petitions he receives just as surely as they prevent him
from giving as much attention to major legislative problems
as he might wish. As a result he must take shortcuts in
handling his communication burden. To illustrate, many
congressmen said they would make greater use of radio and television if they were not so costly both in time and money.
Some gave the same reasons for not writing newsletters. One representative, for instance, pointed out that he did not
make broadcasts or issue newsletters regularly and said it
would be foolish to try to. It is impossible to turn out newsworthy material according to a time table, he observed,
for the business of Congress does not permit its members to work that way.
Their seniority position also would be likely to affect the amount of time they could spend on their communication activities, since their committee responsibilities increase a3 their length of service grows. In a letter dated March 15, 1956, Senator Martin (R., Pa.) indicated that he had 45 encountered this difficulty. He wrote,
I have high seniority on two committees and since attaining that seniority so much time is required that it is difficult to keep as closely in touch with individual problems as I was formerly able to do.
The attitudes of congressmen toward the communications
question are also shaped by many forces over which they have
no control. If their districts are urban and their constit
uents are financially comfortable and believe in writing to
their congressmen — and such urban residents often do^ —
their volume of mail will automatically be higher than that
of their rural colleagues.
In addition, the ineptness of some correspondents may
cause a legislator to throw aside their suggestions or
requests without even acknowledging them. Asked his reaction
to a flood of postcards in support of reciprocal trade, "One protectionist leader remarked, " 'Oh, some women's group put
on a postcard low tariff campaign, but they don't even know what a tariff is.1 Perhaps his Indignation was especially high since this same group had stimulated a barrage of mail
"urging him to vote against a bill which he himself was Q sponsoring."
^Rowena Wyant, "Voting Via the Senate Mail Bag," POQ, V (1941), 361-362. --- Tprank Bonilla. "When Is Petition 'Pressure1?" POQ, XX, 1 (Spring, 1952), 46-47. ^Bonilla, o£. c l t ., pp. 46-47. 4 6
The conditions in their states or districts are among
the other factors that seem to loom large in their communica
tion decisions. The distance of constituencies from the
capital, the amount of party aid members can count on in
their districts, and local or regional attitudes about the
proper role of the representative all enter into the picture
State and district circumstances. ■ The congressman
who represents an urban constituency will ordinarily have to
bear a heavier communication burden than the congressman
from a rural district. In addition, the senator who repre
sents an urban state can expect to receive far more communi
cations than most, if not all, of the representatives from
the urban districts in his state. To Illustrate, while
serving as a representative in Congress, Jacob K. Javits
(R., N.Y.) wrote an average of three letters per day for
every one he received, for a total of 180,000 annually.^
Although he came from an urban district, the twenty-first of
New York, which had a population of 302,531 in 19^0,10 he received an average of but 200 letters per day, whereas IP some Senators were getting as many as 2,000 daily.
The question of proximity also plays a part. East
”* ^Jacob K. Javits, "Congress Wants to Hear Prom You, "The American Magazine. 153 (June, 1952) 1001 ^^Congressional Directory, U.S. Congress, 82d Cong., 1st sess. JMarch, 1951), p. 8 9 . HJavits, o j d . c i t ., p. 103. 12jack Anderson and Pred Blumenthal "What Your Congress man Can Do Por You," Parade section, Washington Post, June 1...• - 1955, P. 11. ------Coast congressmen, for instance, can readily make their views
known on issues that arise "back home" by returning to their
districts and discussing them personally with the voters.
In contrast, what Western legislator can indulgein Brooklyn
Representative Rooney's practice of returning to his constit
uency every weekend to hold office hours for all who call?^
The same consideration affects their use of some of the
facilities and tools Congress has provided, such as telegrams,
stamps, and telephone calls. Detailed reports about how much
congressmen from different parts of the nation vary in their
use of these provisions are not available. However, during
the past 15 years one congressional committee staff member — who prefers to remain anonymous — has been in a position on
"The Hill" where he could develop some common-sense impres sions about this facet of their communications behavior. He reported that the senators from the West and Midwest make greater use of their telegram and airmail stamp allocations than those in the District of Columbia and East Coast areas, for the latter find the regular mail adequate and cheaper, and also are able to make wider use of "free," that is, local telephone calls. "Since telegram quotas above $2,000 do not increase In direct proportion with rises in the size of a state's population," he added, "senators from more populous states usually write or telephone Instead of wiring.
This is true of a majority of the New England and Middle
Atlantic senators." -^Anderson and Blumenthal, loc. cit. 48
The evidence about the effect of regional or state and
district political conditions upon the communication prac
tices of the congressmen is mixed. To illustrate, Lewis
Dexter has suggested that if a legislator comes from a
"safe" district and so tends to win re-election almost
automatically, he may become "less anxious to ascertain the
views of the electorate."I** According to Carl Hawver's
findings, however, the percentages of representatives from
"safe," and "close," districts who were using polls in 1953
differed by only three per cent.1^
Yet the bullc of available evidence supports the idea
that the amount of party competition in a constituency does
have a bearing upon the communication programs of its con
gressmen, even though the influence may be a negative one.
Southern experience has shown that the congressman from a
one-party state can seldom look to a state party for organi- T_ 6 zational or financial aid. As a result his ability to
communicate will be limited unless he is financially inde
pendent. The lack of two-party competition may also affect
the flow of information to him, for "where party influence
is weak there is greater opportunity for the influence of
the pressure group to increase.
^"What Do Congressmen Hear; The Mail," POQ, XX, 1 (Spring, 1952), p. 17 ■^"The Congressman and His Public Opinion Poll," POQ, XVIII (Sumer, 195*0, 125. 1®V. O. Key, Southern Politics in State and Nation (New York: Knopf, 1949), p. 477. l^Robert A. Dahl, Congress and Foreign Policy, (New York: Harcourt, Brace, (1950),p. ll. 49
These same conditions may also pose problems for the
legislator from a "modified one-party state," that is, a state that normally yields most victories to one party but
also gives 30 to 40 per cent of Its vote to the second party regularly.-*-8 The comments made by Representative James
Pulton of Pennsylvania in a letter dated March 13* 1956 are illustrative:
My method of communication Is directly with the voters rather than through groups or political leaders, as I am a member of the Republican Party elected from a district which has a majority of Democratic voters.
In contrast, a senator who owes his election pri marily to a powerful state organization may prove less
responsive to the demands of his constituents, William S.
White contends.1^ In support of his assertion, Mr, White a member of the New York Times' Washington bureau, told this story about Senator Theodore Prances Green (D., R.I.):
As one of the earliest opponents of the late Senator Joseph
P. McCarthy, Senator Green was besieged by a flood of critical postcards from the McCarthyites of his state, which were full of dire threats upon his political life. When asked what he thought about them he said, " 'Odd, disgusting little things, aren't they?' 1,20 as he flicked them into the wastebasket. iaSee Austin Ranney and Wlllmoore Kendall's Democracy and the American Party System (New York: Hareourt, Brace, 155677”p. Ibi, for their full definition of a "modified one-party state." *9white, Citadel; The Story of the U. S . Senate (New York: Harper, 1956), pp. 14(37 2<>Ibid., p. 141. 50
In general, however, congressmen apparently can make
their communication decisions with little regard to local
party cooperation. Perhaps very few members outside the
South encounter the political situation that affects the
communication practices of Senator Russell of Georgia.
According to William Jordan, one of his assistants, "On
major issues the Senator gets information out through his
personal organization and contacts since Georgia politics
are personal politics." However, 38 of the 45 representa
tives, and 28 of the 33 senators, who were interviewed
indicated that their local party organizations were of
little or no aid to them in getting information to the
voters between elections. And some of them said they did
not help much even during their election campaigns.
Regional attitudes about the proper role of the representatives also seem to affect their communication activities. The practices of Northern and Southern repre sentatives Prank Ayres of Ohio and Frank E. Smith of
Mississippi are. indicative of the variations which can result. To arouse interest in a pending price control bill, Mr. Ayres "sent out news releases and placed advertisements in local newspapers"21 to inform his constituents about the issue and cause them to send him their opinions on it. In one of his advertisements he said in part, " 'Although I personally do not believe
21Stephen K. Bailey and Howard D. Samuel, Congress at Work (New York: Henry Holt, 1952), p. 115. 51 that price controls will bring on lower prices..., I am
certainly open to suggestions...because as your duly
elected representative It Is my responsibility to vote 22 your wishes and not my opinions.1 " The approach of Smith, his Southern fellow legislator, is almost completely
opposite. He makes "no attempt at systematic sampling. On
most issues he either (knows} the tenor of opinion in the 3d
District and follow(s} it, or he rest(V) in the security that
the 3d District 0-0 not interested.”23 The differences in
the approaches of these two men tend to confirm Mr. Voorhis1
observation:
The people of most Northern and Western districts feel that their congressmen ought to do whatever the majority of the people in the district want done, whereas the people of the South...appear altogether willing to elect a representative and depend on him to make the decisions for them.2^-
In addition, the voters in some parts of the country are suspicious of the senator or representative who writes
"too often" or gets back to the district "too much." This comment was heard time and again in House and Senate offices.
In some states and districts, constituents also protest if their representatives seek their opinions about complex issues. Consequently, according to Senator Sam Ervin of
North Carolina, many congressmen feel compelled to follow the advice of the old Southern farmer who told his repre sentative that he was to earn his money by making up his 22. Loc. clt. 23Bailey and Samuel, 0£. clt. p. 132. 2^Voorhis, op. clt., p. 3^. own mind, and not by bothering him with a bunch of fool 26 questions.
The friendship or hostility of the owners of the
local mass media toward the member of Congress from their
district may also have an effect upon his choice of cummuni-
cation methods. However, only a small number of the con
gressmen interviewed mentioned partisanship or unfriendly
relations with owners of the local newspapers, radio or
television stations as reasons for their limited use of
one or another of these tools. Fourteen of the 33 senators
have found that one or another of the local media do not
carry their material, but mechanical problems rather than
policy reasons were cited as causes in four cases. In the
House, only 10 of the 45 representatives encountered this
problem and here, too, mechanical problems were mentioned
as reasons in four cases.
Nevertheless, most congressmen seem to act tinder the
impression that their communication activities can serve as aids to re-election If they keep them in accordance with community concepts of proper legislative behavior.
This point was illustrated in a recent study by Lewis
Anthony Dexter entitled: "Congressmen and the People They
Listen To."^ When constituents raised questions about
^observation made during interview on June 23, 1956. ^(MSS at Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Ch. 4, pp. 13-14. 53 their stands on reciprocal trade legislation, Congressman K
wrote and explained why he would vote in opposite to their
views while Senator Y sent off non-committal letters in
which he failed to make his position clear. Congressman K
reported that if he had not committed himself it would have
caused unfavorable comment in the district, for his corre
spondents would have said he was "afraid to stick his neck
out." In contrast, according to his assistant, Senator Y
had found out that it did not pay "to 3tlck his neck out" when he did not have to in his state.
Therefore, this sketch of the effects state and dis trict conditions and attitudes have upon the communication practices of congressmen shows how much the latter are con ditioned by the former. No doubt, the importance of their relationships with their districts are appreciated most of all by the members themselves. In the words of Senator J.
W. Fulbright of Arkansas, this relationship is "...ordi narily, the dominant influence in (the legislator's]} political life.2®
Notwithstanding the importance of those "grass roots" factors, In order to complete our picture of the reasons congressmen differ in their selection among methods*. there
Is still a need to examine:
^Dexter, "Congressmen and the People They Listen To," op. cit., pp. 13-1^. 2^"The Legislator," in The Works of the Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1^47), p . T 2 3 7 ” 54
The appropriateness and utility of the various tools
of communication. — In mapping out their communication
programs, congressmen often mention that they prefer such
tools as letters and speeches over written reports and
polls because the former are generally more appropriate
and more effective than the latter. Their preferences are
corollaries of their general and specific reasons for com
municating. They are also Influenced by their awareness of
the advantages and disadvantages of the old and new com
munication methods and techniques and by their impressions
that some have greater utility than others as means of
helping them achieve their Individual communication
objectives.
The general communication aims of congressmen include
a need or desire (l) to reach large or small audiences, (2)
to use personal versus impersonal methods or outlets, and
(3) to communicate quickly or at a more leisurely pace. In addition, as noted In Chapter II, congressmen have these specific purposes In communicating:
1. To enhance their re-election chances.
2. To answer specific constituent demands.
3. TO Justify positions on votes they must cast.
4. To win public support for policies they favor.
5. To maintain a sense of contact with the voters.
6. To educate the public.
7. To sound out local public opinion.
8. To keep abreast of the problems of major concern in their constituencies. 55 Naturally, these specific and general objectives both
need to be taken into account by the members when they are
selecting their methods of communication. To illustrate,
in trying to justify his position on an issue, a congressman
may believe an interview with the Interested parties would
be both appropriate and effective. However, all those who
were interested might include 30 or 40 per cent of his con
stituents. In that case, if he still wanted to explain his
stand to all of them, lack of time would force him to resort
to another alternative such as speeches in his district or
by radio.
Technological changes in the twentieth century have
also had an affect on the members' communication decisions.
For instance, demonstrations of the widespread popularity
of television soon made it clear that the new medium had
taken its place beside radio and the press as one of the
major instruments of mass communication on the American
scene. As a result, within the House and Senate interested congressmen began to ask themselves whether or not they should add telecasts to their traditional methods of keeping
in touch with their constituents. News that the active electorate had "increased from 39 per cent to 62 per cent of the ellgibles"29 during the 20 years since radio came into vogue had a similar effect.
29Morrls L. Ernst, *n»e First Freedom (New York: MacMillan, 1946), p. 1747 56
Although there might not have been any cause-and-effect re
lationship here, the chance that there could have been
tended to foster an interest in radio among the members.
By mid-century, therefore, more and more senators and
representatives had added reason to expand rather than
contract their publicity programs. In the interest of sur
vival, both old and new members began tailoring their
practices to popular taste. In 1955* for example, after 33
years in the Senate, former Senator Walter George of Georgia
finally concluded it was necessary for him to hire a trained
public relations director to tell the people of Georgia
about his service In their behalf. In addition, as the
audiences of the mass media have grown in size, election-
conscious congressmen from all over the nation have found
It increasingly desirable to shift the scene of their major
political addresses from Main Street to the radio or tele
vision studios of A.B.C., N.B.C., and C.B.S.
Next we come to an examination of the advantages and disadvantages and the utility of the old and new methods and techniques of communication-eonsiderations which may be most important of all In producing the differences In the members' communication programs. "Old" tools are all those that were available and In general use before 1900.
All those that were invented or first began to be used widely after the turn of the century are considered "new." 57 Debates, Interviews, panel discussions, and speeches can be classified in either or both categories. When they are not
broadcast or telecast, they can be counted as old tools; but when they are carried by radio or television, they are
considered new. The other methods and techniques are listed
below under their appropriate classifications and are also
sub-classified as oral or written tools:
Old tools New tools
1. Oral: 1. Oral:
meetings* broadcasts personal contacts telecasts trips to district telephone calls
2. Written: 2. Written:
government bulletins newsletters letters public opinion newspaper advertise- polls ments press releases Record reprints written reports
These old methods and techniques of communication have three major advantages oyer the new. First, they are
"tried and tested," This means that even a brand new con gressman can base his decision to use them on some know ledge of their effectiveness rather than on mere guesswork.
Second, they are traditional. Consequently, even if a representative or senator comes from a region where voters take a dim view of the legislator who communicates too much,
*lncludes question-and-answer-type meetings. 58
he can use most, if not all, of these tools without much fear
of antagonizing them. Third, they are generally less costly
to the member himself. The government pays the entire cost
— within the limits of the stationery allowance — of five
of the nine old tools, while it covers all of the costs of
but two of the five new tools.
The major advantages the new tools have over the old
are the speed they afford the congressmen and the large
audiences they allow him to reach. The first advantage is
an attribute of only three of these new tools and the second
of only two. Neither newsletters nor polls are swift methods
of communication, and neither they nor the telephone enable members to reach larger audiences than they could by using
old tools, such as letters and written reports.
The disadvantages of the old methods and techniques are the advantages of the new, and vice versa. However, some of the tools in each category or both; namely, inter views, speeches, meetings, personal contacts, trips to the district, letters, newsletters, broadcasts, and telecasts share one common advantage. All of them offer the congress man personal channels or outlets for his communications.
Let us now see whether the members use personal or impersonal'methods and techniques by preference. Let us also note which tools they consider mo3t effective, and the explicit or implicit reasons they give for choosing one device rather than another. 59 In Chapter III, It was pointed out that when the
senators and representatives were asked what methods and
sources helped them ascertain public opinion in their con
stituencies, the largest number of members from each house
said, "Mail, personal contacts, and trips to the district."
Their responses suggest that congressmen, like many other
men, are prone to rely upon personal contacts or personal
impressions rather than impersonal devices, such as public
opinion polls or second-hand reports from unknown groups
or persons, when they seek information about the attitudes
of others.
'Hie members also tend to turn primarily to personal sources when they are seeking facts. In making a study of legislators1 sources of expert information, Hattery and
Hofmeier listed ten major sources of factual information for members of Congress. These were ranked by the congress men, in order of importance, as follows:
(l) Committee Hearings, (2) Personal Readings and Consultation, (3) Office Staff, (4) Committee Staffs, (5) Arguments on the Floor, (6) Legislative Reference Service, (7) Executive Departments, (8) Interest Groups, (9/ Political Party, (10) Legisla tive Counsel.30
The considerations that lead them to rely upon personal sources when they seek Information may also have some effect upon the types of methods they decide to use when they seek to Inform the public. Private mailing lists,
3°As cited by Lewis Anthony Dexter in "Congressmen and the People They Listen To,1’ o£. cit., Ch. 8, p. 1. 60
radio, and television programs somehow are more personal
channels of communication than either the press or group
outlets, such as political parties or pressure groups. Any
message sent to persons on a mailing list or conveyed by
radio or television goes directly from the congressman into
the homes of his addresses or listeners. In the newspaper
realm itself unless the member is blocked by the presence
of a hostile local press or the absence of a local
Washington correspondent, direct releases to the local
press rather than to the wire services would also be more
likely to help preserve the personal character of the
m e s s a g e .
In Chapter III it was also noted that the largest
groups among the 111 members who replied, said they turned
to letters from constituents, the local press, and actions
by local organizations or conversations with community
leaders in selecting subjects for their communications.
Less than one-fourth of the senators and one-fifth of the
representatives mentioned their own judgment or congressional
action on Issues as sources. Hie differences in their
choices may reflect a difference in the members1 attitudes
toward their roles. Those in the former group seem to dis play more concern about following public opinion than the
latter, who seem more Inclined to lead it. The replies of the first group also suggest that the communication prac tices of many individual legislators are Influenced by 6l
their keen awareness of their dependence on district support.
When asked what techniques and devices of communication
provided them with their most effective method of communicat
ing with a majority of their constituents, more of the 127
congressmen who replied checked press releases than any other
method. Even the combined second choice of press, radio,
and television, listed in Table 6, was rated "most effective"
by only half as many representatives and senators.
TABLE 6
MOST EFFECTIVE METHOD OF COMMUNICATING WITH A MAJORITY OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS
22 105 Senators Representatives Totals
Letters 1 3 4
Newsletters - 4 4
Press releases 6 28 34
Radio - 1 1
Television - - -
Miscellaneous - 1 1
More than one method 12 55 67
Radio and television 4 3 7 Press, radio, and television 3 17 20
Other 5 35 40
No answer 3 13 16 Source: Questionnaire responses from 127 congressmen. 62
The reasons given for using one or another of these three
mass media were essentially the same. Senators and repre
sentatives (like Senator Francis Case and Representative
Charles Diggs); Northerners, Southerners, and Midwesterners
(like Saltonstall of Massachusetts, Ellender of Louisiana,
and Congresswoman Griffiths of Michigan) - all kinds of
congressmen said that they used the press, radio, or
television because these media gave them wide or rapid
coverage or both.
In more specific terms, congressmen issue press releases because they know newspaper publicity constitutes "a potent method of keeping 1 the folks back home' alert to (jtheir) achievements."^ In addition, as Leo Rosten. noted 20 years ago, they attempt to stay on good terms with the reporters both as a matter of necessity and as a consequence of the mutual bonds between them. No member who plans to seek re-election can afford to be on hostile terms with the newspapermen who report the news his constituents read.
Furthermore, many members are or have been reporters, editors, or publishers and this experience causes them to treat requests for stories sympathetically.^2 Judging from the widespread use of press releases, and the comments heard,
In the House and Senate offices visited, the same reasons for
Issuing them still prevail. ------J Leo C. Rosten, (The Washington Correspondents (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1937)» P. 79. 3gibld., pp. 7 9 and So. 63 When trying to inform their constituents about bills of major importance or interest to them, press releases are again
preferred by more members than any other method, and radio is also popular in both houses. Newsletters and letters follow press releases in popularity among the representatives,
while letters and reprints from The Record rank third and fourth in esteem among the senators.
Although individual senators and representatives may
sometimes wish they could cut down on what Congressman
McGroarty of California once described as their "Jackass
mail,for the most part they consider service to and
correspondence with their constituents appropriate and im
portant aspects of their work as elected representatives.3^ Furthermore, even though an increasing number of con gressmen are making use of radio and television every year,
Senator Kefauver says that most of them still consider mail
"the most practicable way of maintaining a close relationship
(with)...the people."^ His opinion is also shared by other members. Following extensive interviews with 50 senators and representatives, Lewis Dexter reported that "in the
33John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage (New York: Harper, 1955), P. 10 Ojl Author's interviews with 78 members of the 84th Con gress or their staff assistants.) ae -^Estes Kefauver and Jack Levin, A Twentieth Century Congress (New York: Duell, Sloan, and Tearce, 1947J, p. 5.71. 64 Importance attached to It both by congressmen and by busi
ness constituents, mail outweighs every other form of com munication."^ This attitude is reflected in their staff
assignments and in the amount of money Congress spends annually on related devices such as the franking privilege. Senator Lehman of New York, for example, has 11 of his 25
staff assistants spend full time handling the letters he receives.37 And in 1955* "Postmaster General Arthur E.
Summerfield told Congress... it cost more than $1,000,000 to
move its free mail last y e a r . "38
Many congressmen from both houses also said they like
to use letters whenever possible because they are a direct
means of personal contact; and, as Representative Poage
(D., Tex.) said,"Personal contacts cannot be beaten."
Some members gave the same reason for using telegrams,
telephone calls, and newsletters.
Although they did not say, the time factor may have
caused more senators to use reprints instead of newsletters
when seeking to inform their constituents about important
bills. Ordinarily, it requires much more time to prepare
a newsletter than to get a speech reprinted, and senators
seem to be even more pressed for time than representatives.
36;Lewis Anthony Dexter, "What Do Congressmen Hear: The Mail," POQ, XX, 1 (Spring, 1952), 17. 37sailey and Samuel, o£. clt. pp. 99 and 102. 38"Pranking Cost Set at One Million," New York Times, June 6, 1955* P. 4. 65 Finally, one additional reason for the relatively
limited popularity of polls of public opinion should be noted.
They are used more o'ften in the House than in the Senate, but
many representatives are also doubtful about the validity of
poll results. "A study of senators and representatives by
George F. Lewis, Jr. in 19^0 with a 40 per cent response to
his questionnaire reported that 13 per cent thought that
public opinion polls correctly portrayed public opinion,
whereas 72 per cent believed that they did so only in p a r t ."39
According to a survey made of all of the members of the House
of Representatives in 1953* "most congressmen feel the poll
is more valuable to them as an instrument for Improving their
public relations than as a means of determining public
opinion.* .. .. 40
This concludes our survey of the influences upon the
communication patterns of the members of Congress. I believe
the range in our investigations has been extensive enough to
provide an accurate concept of the differences in the patterns
and the reasons for them. However, it has not been intensive
enough to serve as a test of my central hypothesis that the
members' communication practices are related to their
^Alfred ae Grazia, "Research on Voters and Elections," in Research Frontiers in Politics and Government (Washington, D.C.: “ttie firookings Institution, 1955), P. lid. 4°Carl Hawver, "The Congressman and His Public Opinion Poll," POQ, XVIII (Siammer, 1954), 128. insecurity. In Chapters V and VI, therefore, I shall
attempt to test It by making a detailed analysis of the relations, if any, between the practices of 31 senators and the congressional environment, and between their practices and their state environments. CHAPTER V
ECOLOGY: THE CONGRESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT1
Rare is the textbook or treatise on Congress that does
not discuss Burke's classic dictum about the role of a
legislator or focus attention upon the seniority rule as
a basis of power on both sides of Capitol Hill. Member of
Parliament or Member from Bristol, leader or follower of
public opinion, or a mixture of both — what choice should
the new congressman make? Whatever his decision, it well
may determine whether or not he will acquire seniority in
either house.
If he does survive several election contests, he will
find that his new position of seniority will bring him both
added power and added responsibility. In contrast, whether he becomes a leader or a follower of public opinion in his state, In Congress, or in the nation — or even a mixture of both — the concomitants of the position will be neither certain nor clear. Here we do not enter Into the debate about the choice he should make, but turn Instead to a
Joint consideration of his role as a legislator and his seniority position as possible influences upon his com munication practices.2 J-The special aspects of the congressional environment that will be considered In this chapter are (1) the members' status as a result of their length of service In Congress, and (2) their roles as leaders or followers of public opinion, one role or the other being a concomitant of membership in Congress. 2see Appendix V for a description of the character istics of the senator whose practices served as the basis for the conclusions in this chapter. - 67 - 68
In a democracy, representatives are expected to voice
and to instruct the will of the people. Communications help
them perform this duty, but all members do not take equal
advantage of congressional communication facilities. How
can we account for the differences? Do the members make
more or less use of these facilities as they acquire higher
seniority, or is there no marked difference between those
with low, and those with high, seniority when taken as a
whole? Are congressmen who classify themselves as followers
rather than leaders of public opinion, or are so labeled by
others, les3 inclined to communicate with their constituents
than those who call themselves leaders? Even here, there
may be differences within the ranks of leaders and followers.
The member who considers himself a leader of public opinion
in his district but is rated a follower in the House of
Representatives may tend to use mass communication methods
far more than his fellow representative who is counted a
leader both inside and outside of Congress. On the other
hand, no matter how these legislators are grouped their
communication patterns may differ. Their choice of methods,
for example, may vary as much as the pictures and ornaments
on their office walls. In that event, our findings may necessitate a reconsideration of some widely held assumptions about the relations between congressional status and con gressional behavior. 69 General practices. — This study was begun with
several hypotheses in mind, including an assumption that the
communication practices of the members of Congress are re
lated to their insecurity. For the purposes of the study,
it is also assumed that congressional circumstances -
namely, the members' seniority positions and their status
as leaders or followers of public opinion or of their fellow
senators - indicate whether they are relatively secure or
insecure vis-a-vis the other senators.2 With respect to
the question of insecurity, for example, an Increase in
seniority is equated with a decrease in a member's inse
curity, other things being equal. As an additional check
on seniority as an Influence, a comparison was made of the
practices of the senior, and the Junior, senators from the
states represented in the sample.
Six different comparisons were made of the communica
tion practices of senators with high, and with low,
seniority: two dealt with the number of methods they use
regularly, two with the number of techniques they use most,
one with whether they employ a high, medium, or low number
of methods regularly, and the sixth with whether they use a
high, medium, or low number of techniques most. All but
the last two comparisons, that is, a total of four, were
also made of the.communication practices of the states'
2See Appendix VI for a description of the methods used in classifying the members as to seniority and as leaders, non-leaders, or followers of public opinion. 7 0
junior and senior senators. These comparisons are recorded
in Tables 7> 8 and 9.
TABLE 7
COMPARISONS OP QUANTITIES OF COMMUNICATION METHODS USED REGULARLY WITH SENIORITY POSITIONS OP THE SENATORS
Methods used Seniority^ regularly15 High _____ Low______Many 8 “ 7 15 Few 7 8 15 _------~T5------15------55 X a .13 P greater than .50, less than .60 Difference not significant
Seniority0 Methods used High Medium Low regularly0 Many------W------5------15 Few 5 4 6 15 p ~ ~ T ~ --- IB--- n ----- 55 = .602 df = 2 P greater than .70, less than .80 Difference not significant
Methods used Seniority0 regularly^ High Medium Low High “ ~ 2 ------5----- 5------15 Medium 3 2 5 Low 4 6 3 12 2------5------15----- 8------35 H ~ 3.3 df * 4 P greater than .50 Difference not significant______aHlgh seniority: began service on or before January 3, 1949, Low seniority: began service after January 3, 1949. bMany methods: 5-8* Few methods: 1-4. °High seniority: in group of senators serving sixth consecutive term or more, Medium seniority: in group of senators serving from third consecutive through sixth un- consecutlve term, Low Seniority: serving from first through third unconsecutive term. dHlgh: 6-8, Medium: 4-5, Low: 1-3. 71
TABLE 0
COMPARISONS OF QUANTITIES OF COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUES USED MOST WITH SENIORITY POSITIONS OF THE SENATORS
Seniority 3h Lev Techniques used Many 7 8 15 most Few 8 7 15 15 X 2 - .13 P greater than ,Z>U, less than .60 Difference not significant
Seniority High Medium Low Techniques used Many 2 5 8 15 most Few 7 5 3 i \ 9 "15" 11 $ X - 5.02 df - 2 P greater than .05, less than .10 Difference tends toward significance
Seniority® High Medium Low Techniques used High 2 3 6 11 most Medium 2 5 2 9 Low 6 2 2 10 id 16 10 X - 7.1*3 df - h p greater than .10, less than .20 Difference not significant
*Hiflh seniority: began service on or before January 3, 19U9. Low seniority: began service after January 3, 191*9. ^Many techniques: U.5-9, Few techniques: 1-1*.5. c High seniority: in group of senators serving sixth consecu tive term or more .nieditat seniority: in group of senators serving from third consecutive through sixth unconsecutive tern, Low seniority: serving from first through third unconsecutive term. nfuriber of techniques: high: 5-9, medium: 1*, low: 1-3. 72 T A B U 9
COMPARISONS OF QUANTITIES OF COMMUNICATION METHODS USED REGULARLY AND COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUES USED MOST BY THE JUNIOR AND SENIOR SENATORS
Status® Junior Senators Senior Senators Methods used Many 8 7 1* regularly13 Few 7 8 £ j o X2 - .13 P greater than .50, less than .60 Difference not significant Status® Junior Senators Senior Senators Methods used High 8 b 12 regularly0 Medium 5 5 Low 7 6 IS 30 X* - 3.91 df - 2 M C o P greater than .10, less than . Difference not significant Status* Junior Senators Senior Senators Techniques used Many 9 6 15 most Pew 7 8 15 " ' T 6 ...... lb X 2 - «5U P greater than ,30, less than .50 Difference not significant Status® Junior Senators Senior Senators Techniques used High 6 b 10 most* Medium 5 5 10 Low b 6 10 15 jo X 2 - .80 df - 2 P greater than .50, less than .70 Difference not significant
^Senators: Junior — those who have served less tine than their fellow senator from the sane state, senior — those who have served more tine than their fellow senator fron the sane state, (cont'd.) *
73
The chi square (X2) value^ approached significance In
only one of the ten comparisons made. In that test the
question checked was whether or not the senators with high,
medium, and low seniority use "many" or "few" techniques of
communication most. Even in that comparison the P value,
which lay between the 3 per cent and the 10 per cent levels
of confidence, was not significant, although it showed a
tendency toward significance. Perhaps with a larger sample,
this comparison would reveal a higher relation between the
senators' seniority positions and the number of techniques
they use most.
Since this manifestation of slight significance
appeared In connection with a test where the senators had
been distributed among three seniority groups, It suggests
that the use of the "high" and "low" dichotomy may not be
appropriate. In his communication practices the senator who is a newcomer on Capitol Hill may differ as much from the senator who has served seven years as he does from the senior senators who were elected to Congress before World
War II.
(cont*d from page 72, preceding) bManyi 5-8, Few: 1-4. cgigh: 6-8, Medium: 4-5, Low: 1-3. dMany: 4.5-9, F e w : 1-4.5. eHlgh: 5-9, Medium: 4, Low: 1-3. % e e Appendix VII for an explanation of the chi square test. 74
The number of methods used regularly and the number of tech
niques used most** were tested against (1) their self-classi
fications as leaders or followers, (2) their classifications
according to a tabulation made of the amount of publicity
each got in 1955 in the New York Times, and (3) the leader-
follower ratings which they were given by one Washington
observer. In making the "New York Times comparison," the
senators were grouped in two different ways. The first
included three categories: (l) those senators who had received a high (51 to 309)» (2) medium (26 to 50), or (3) low (1-25) number of references in that newspaper. The
second involved placing all senators who had received 40 or
more references in the group of leaders and the balance in
the non-leaders category. These comparisons are recorded
in Tables 10, 11, and 12.
Despite all of the different types of comparisons made,
no significant differences were found to exist between the
number of methods or techniques used by the senators who are classified as leaders as against those classified as followers. Here, too, however, there was a strong tendency toward significance in one case. In comparing the use of many and few methods regularly by the Senators whom the out side dbserver rated as leaders or non-leaders within the
^See Appendix VIII for a description of the devices in cluded in each of these categories and the distribution of the senators in terms of the number of methods and tech niques they use on the average. TABLE 10
COMPARISONS OF QUANTITIES OF COMMUNICATION METHODS AND TECHNIQUES USED BY SENATORS WHO CLASSIFY THEMSELVES AS PRIMARILY LEADERS OR FOLLOWERS OF PUBLIC OPINION
Status Leader Follower Methods used regular lya Many 9 U 13 Few 8 1 9 " 1 7 ---- T' ■'"52
X2 - .39 P greater than .50, less than .70 Difference not significant
Status Leader Follower Techniques used Many S $ 13 nost Few 8 - 8 — 15-- " 5 " ST
P greater than *99 Difference not significant
Methods used regularly: many: 5-8* few 1-1*. Techniques used most: many: U.5-9* few 1-U.5 76
TABLE 11
COMPARISONS OF QUANTITIES OF COMMUNICATION METHODS AND TECHNIQUES USED BY SENATORS WHO ARE LEADERS OR NON LEADERS OF NATIONAL OPINION
Status Leader Non-leader Methods used regularly15 Many 9 6 15 Few 6 9 l? 15 15 io
X c - 1.2 P greater than .20, less than .30 Difference not significant
Status Leader Non-leader Techniques used most0 Many 10 5 15 Few 6 9 15 16 ik >0
X c - 2.11*3 P greater than .10, less than .20 Difference not significant
aAccording to the publicity they received in the Sew York Times in 1955* ^Many: 5-8, Few: 1-1*. °Many: l*.5-9, Few* l-li-5- 77
TABLE 12 COMPARISONS OF QUANTITIES OF COMMUNICATION METHODS AND TECHNIQUES USED BY SENATORS WHO ARE LEADERS OR NON LEADERS AMONG THEIR FELLOW SENATORS
Status3 Leader Non-leader Methods used regularlyk Many 6 9 15 Few — 1711 h 15 ... JJ... jo
X2 - 3.3 P greater than .05, less than .10 Difference tends toward significance
Status3 Leader Non-leader Techniques used most® Many 7 8 15 Feu 10 5 15 i7 13 jo
X2 - 1.2 P greater than .20, less than .30 Difference not significant
a According to one Washington observer. ^Many: 5-8, Few: l-h.
CMany: L.59, Few 1-Iw5« 7 8 Senate, the P value obtained was between the 5 per cent and
the 10 per cent levels of confidence. As shown in Table 11,
more of the leaders use few rather than many methods regular
ly while the reverse is true of the non-leaders.
The fact that one difference tends toward signifi
cance Is In keeping with my assumption that there is some
relation between a member's position in Congress and his
communication practices. However, the evidence presented so far is not sufficient to warrant accepting the assumption as valid.
To test It further, therefore, a sub-tabulation has been made of the methods and techniques of communication used regularly and often by the senators:
1. With low and high seniority.
2. With Junior and senior standing in the Senate.
3. Who classify themselves as leaders or followers
of public opinion.^
4. Who are or are not attempting to lead national
public opinion, that is, are leaders or non
leaders according to our New York Times classifi
cation method.
5. Who are leaders or non-leaders among their fellow
senators according to one Informed observer.
^Qnly 24 of the 31 senators in the sample were willing to give themselves such a rating, so this tabulation is probably less representative than the others. The findings are depicted in Tables 13 and 14. Both tables
show what percentage of the 30 senators in the sample who
have a particular status, such as low seniority, use a
particular method or technique. On the second line in each
category, they also show what percentage of all senators who
have a particular status use this method or technique. To
take a specific example, the report on the use of news
letters by senators with low seniority in Part A of Table
13 shows that 20 per cent or 6 out of the 30 senators in the
sample have low seniority and use newsletters. It also shows
on the following line, that 37 per cent or 6 out of the 16
senators in the entire sample who have low seniority use
this communication method regularly.
In order to determine whether or not these communica
tion patterns support an hypothesis that the members' prac
tices vary with their insecurity, a check was made to see
how many senators in each category make greater use of the
tools listed than their counterparts in the opposite category
In other words, the aim was to learn two things: First, do
the senators in one category make greater use of a parti
cular method than the senators in the opposite category?
Second, is the percentage of senators who fall in the former category and make use of this particular method higher than the percentage of those in the latter category who also use this method? TABLE 13
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE STATUS OF StNATORS AND THE METHODS THEY USE REGULARLY
Part A: Status Methods Used Seniority Senators Regularly® Low High Jr. Sr.
Newsletters (2u) 17 17 (20) (37) 36 33 (Uu)
Record reprints 17 (2u) (2u) 17 31 (U3) (1*0) 33
Telecasts 20 20 (23) 17 37 U3 (1*7) 33
Broadcasts (30) 23 (30) 23 (56) 5o (60) 1*7
Government bulletins 23 (30) 27 27 1*1* (6U) 53 53
Letters 27 (33) 30 30 5o (71) 60 60
Meetings (l*o) 27 (1*0) 27 (75) 57 (80) 53
Press releases (1*3) 37 (1*7) 33 (81) 79 (93) 67
Total no. of bracketed groups per column 1* 3 5 1
^The first row of figures in each horizontal column shows percentage of 30 senators in saqple who have status listed in column heading and use the method specified. ^The second row of figures in each horizontal column shows percentage of all of the senators with status listed in column heading who use the method specified. 81
TABLE 13 (cont'd.)
Part B:
Status: Leader(L), Follower(F), Non-Leader(WL) Methods Used Per M.C. Per N.Y. Times Per B.C. Observi Regular ly3®"” L F L NL L NL
Newsletters (30) 7 7 30 17 (20) (53) LO 20 (1*5) 29 (1*6)
Record reprints 23 10 (2u) 17 17 (20) LI 60 (60) 25 29 (1*6)
Telecasts (23) 7 13 27 20 20 (hi) 1*0 1*0 1*0 35 1*6 Broadcasts (37) 10 17 (37) 27 27 (65) 60 50 (55) 1*7 61 t /Government bulletins 27 13 23 30 23 (27) h 7 80 70 1*5 1*1 (61) Letters 30 13 17 (1*3) (1*0) 20 53 80 50 (65) (71) 1*6
Meetings 33 17 20 (1*7) 30 (33) 59 100 60 (70) 53 (77) Press releases hi 17 23 (53) 1*3 (33) 82 100 70 (80) 76 (77)
Total no. bracketed groups/ column 3 - 1 5 1 5
aThe first row of figures in each horizontal column shows percentage of 30 senators in saaple who have status listed in colrapn heading and use the method specified* b The second row of figures in each horizontal column shows percentage of all the senators with status listed in column headings who use the method specified* TABLE 11*
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE STATUS OF SENATORS AND THE TECHNIQUES THEY USE MOST
Part A: Status Techmigues Seniority Senators Used MostSb Low High Jr. Sr.
Interviews (3o) 17 (33) 13 (60) 33 (67) 27
Quest!on-and-ansver- type-neetings (2u) 17 (20) 17 (UO) 33 (bo) 33
Telephone calls (30) 17 (30) 17 (6u) 33 (6o) 33
Written reports 27 27 27 27 53 53 53 53
Personal contacts (to) 37 (to) 37 (87) 73 (87) 73
Speeches (50) 37 (5u) 37 (100) 53 (100) 73
Total no. of bracketed groups per column 5 - 5 -
aThe first row of figures in each horizontal colunn shows percentage of senators in sample who have status listed in colunn headings and use the technique shown. **The second row of figures in each horizontal colunn shows percentage of all of the senators with status listed in colunn headings who use the technique shown. 8.3
TABLE lb (cont'd.)
Part B: Status: Leader(L), Follower(F) , Non-Leader(NL) Techniques Per M.'C. Per N.Y,. Times Per D.C. Observer Used Most®*5 L F L ML L NL
Interviews (30) 7 23 23 23 23 (53) i*0 6h 37 111 5U Question-and- answer meetings (27) 7 (23) 17 10 (23) (U7) UO (6U) 26 18 (5a
Telephone calls 23 10 13 (33) 23 23 111 60 36 (53) 111 51i
Written reports (iio) 10 20 33 23 (30) (71) 60 55 53 a (69)
Personal contacts <1*3; 17 20 (60) (U7) 33 76 100 55 (95) (82) 77
Speeches 53 17 37 50 (5o) 37 9ii 100 100 79 (88) 85 Total no. bracketed groups/ column 3 * l 2 2 2
®Thc first row of figures in each horizontal column shows percentage of 30 senators in sample w h o have status listed in column headings and use the technique shown. ^The second row of figures in each horizontal column shows percentage of all of the senators with status listed in column headings who use the technique shown. The column totals in both tables show how many times
the usage of these methods by the senators in each category
exceeded that of their counterparts on both counts. To
illustrate, in column one in Part A of Table 13 under the
seniority category the totals show that the senators with
low seniority exceed those with high seniority in their use
of four methods, while the senators with high seniority
exceed them only once. This fact is in keeping with our
assumption that congressmen who are less secure will make
greater use of the available methods of communication than
those whose high seniority in Congress gives them reason to
feel more secure.
In addition, tables 13 and 14 show that the other
senators who are considered insecure, namely, the junior
state senators and those who are non-leaders according to both their New York Times publicity and our Washington observer, all use more methods regularly than their secure opposites. The one exception Involves the senators who by their self-ratings are more leaders than follower* of public opinion. Actually almost 90 per cent of these members con sider themselves leaders, which means that more of the senators who use these methods regularly would be likely to be included in the leadership group. Besides, even
United State Senators do not always see accurate reflections
In their looking glasses. ~ '•■• . '-r-r
85
The comparisons of the status of the senators with the
techniques used most lent further support to the thesis of
this study. The senators with low seniority, junior stand
ing, and my New York Times -non-leader rating all make most
use of more techniques than their fellow senators with high
seniority, senior standing, and recognition as leaders.
Once again, the usage pattern of the senators who classi
fied themselves as leaders or followers was not in keeping
with the patterns of the other secure senators. Probably
this difference can al3o be attributed to the reason given
for their variance from the norm in the number of methods
.used regularly.
However, the members who are leaders and non-leaders
in the Senate both make higher usage of the same number of
techniques. The former use personal contacts and speeches
more than the latter, while these non-leaders make greater
use of question-and-answer meetings and written reports.
Perhaps the difference in their status fOBters this dif
ference in their choice of methods.
Whatever the reasons for the differences noted, they
do tend to verify the original assumption that there is a
relation between the communication practices of senators
and their congressional environment. Next let us see whether a similar relationship exists between their com munication patterns and certain conditions in their home states. CHAPTER VI
ECOLOGY: THE STATE ENVIRONMENT
Whenever political scientists or politicians get into
a discussion about Congress, sooner or later someone is
bound to mention the power of the senators from the one-
party South or the conservative stands taken by rural
representatives, or to make some other allusion to the im
portance of state party conditions or population character
istics as roots of congressional behavior. This study was
begun with similar Ideas In mind. Specifically, I believe
that there is some relation between the political and
population conditions within a state and the actions of
its congressmen.
To test this belief, first comparisons were made
between the methods and techniques of communication used
by senators (1 ) from one- and two-party states, or (2 )
from one-party, modified one-party, and two-party states.
The distinctions between the state party systems listed in
category two are those which Austin Ranney and Willmoore
Kendall developed.^
^Austin Ranney and Willmoore Kendall, Democracy and the American Party System (New York: Hareourfc, krace, 1956 ), pp. lbl-164. See Appendix IX for a description of the distinctions used.
- 86 - 87 TABLE 15
COMPARISONS OP THE METHODS AND TECHNIQUES OP COMMUNICATION USED BY SENATORS PROM STATES WITH DIVERSE POLITICAL SYSTEMSa
Political System13 One-party Two-party Methods used Many 7 ~8~ T 5 regularly^ Pew 5 10 15 T2“ T5" IS X2 = .55 P greater than .30, less than .50. Difference not significant
One- Political System party Two-party . 1 5 . _ . 2. Methods Many 1 0 15 used Pew 2 3 10 15 regularly0 3 ' 9 ' T 5 " 30 X* * 1.554 df = 2 P = greater than .30, less than .50
Political System One-party Two-garty Techniques Many T 3 used moste Pew 6 9 15 TT TT IS X2 - .703 P greater than .30, less than .50 Difference not significant
One- Political System
Techniques used moste Many 1 4 10 15 Pew 2 4 9 15 8 19 30 vii — oQJi P greater than .80, less than .90 ______Difference not significant______aThe differences between the one-party and two-party totals shown in the first and third comparisons result from the inclusion of two different senators in our methods and techniques categories. The senator we Included in the methods category came from a two- party state, while the senator in the techniques category represented a one-party state, This difference did not affect the totals in the second, and fourth 88
The first four comparisons made are shown in Table 15.
They did not reveal any significant differences between the
communication devices employed regularly or most by the
senators grouped according to the diverse political condi
tions in their states. Almost as many senators from one-
party states as from two-party states used many methods
regularly. Even where there was a sharp difference between
the number of senators in each group who used many techniques,
as in the third comparison, the proportion of members with
in each group who used many and few techniques was quite
similar, Tliis indicates that there is even less difference
• between the two groups than meets the eye at first glance.
Therefore, an analysis was made of the relations be
tween the methods and techniques used by senators from urban
and rural, or urban, mixed, and rural states to see if they revealed any marked differences.2 The analyses are reported in Table 16. (cont^d from precedingpage) comparisons because both of these senators' states fell into the modified one-party classification used there. Din this comparison: a one-party state is one in which the second party won 25 per cent or less of the presi dential, senatorial, and gubernatorial victories in that state between 1914 and 1954, while a two-party state is one in which the second party won over 25 per cent of these victories. CM a n y : 5-8, Few: 1-4. dModified one-party system is said to exist in any state which regularly gives one party the victories, but also gives the second party 30 to 40 per cent of its votes usually. eMany: 4.5-9, Few: 1-4.5. 2see Appendix X for an explanation of the methods used to distinguish between the urban-rural and urban, mixed, and rural states. 89
TABLE 16
COMPARISONS OF THE METHODS AND TECHNIQUES OF COMMUNICATION USED BY SENATORS FROM STATES WITH DIFFERENT POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Population Characteristics6 Urban Rural 1* Methods used Many — m ------1 15 Few 6 regularly13 9 y 15 w 5> X - ii.6 '" df - i P greater than .02* less than •05 Difference is significant Population Characteristics0 Urban Mixed Rural 2• Methods used Many 3 10 10 22 lF regularly® Few 6 3 66 1$ “T i f T lo X - 6.7 df - 2 P greater than .02, less than •05 Difference is significant Population Characteristics1 Urban Rural 3. Techniques Many 13------2 ---- 15 used most® Few 10 1? H X x 2 - 1.67 P greater than .10, less than .20 Difference not significant Population Characteristics* Urban Mixed Rural it. Techniques used Many X "IT. 15 most® Few 5 5 $ li 8 1.30U df - 2 P greater than .*>0, less than 70 Difference not significant Percentage of population which is urban in: urban states . - 50.0 per cent or more, rural states - U9.9 per cent or less. ^Source* 195o Census of Population. ®Many: $-8p Few: 1-iu ^Percentage of population which is urban in: urban states - 60 per cent to over 60 per cent, nixed states: $0*0 to 61**9 per cent, rural states: 1*9.9 per cent or under. Source: 19$0 Census of Popula tion. 90
This table shows that there are significant differences
between the communication methods used regularly by senators
who come from (1) urban and rural states, and (2) urban or
rural and mixed states. The results recorded in the first
and second comparisons indicate that the senators who
represent "mixed" states find it more desirable or necessary
to use many methods regularly than their fellow senators
from more settled areas. Thus these results demonstrate
that there is a relation between the members' Insecurity
and at least one part of their communication practices.
At mid-century this marked activity on the part of
these senators from "mixed" states is particularly note
worthy. If high living standards continue to permit the
public to be mobile, more and more senators are likely to
find themselves representing states which have been changed
from rural to "mixed" status by their increases in popula
tion. Therefore, future generations may find their con
gressmen making ever greater use of the available methods
of communication.
The lack of difference In the quantity of techniques used most by senators with rural and urban constituencies
is not in accord with the central thesis of this study, but neither does It disprove it. However, this lack of difference leads one to wonder whether there Is more evidence in favor of, or in opposition to, this thesis.
Sub-tabulations of the relations between the political and 91 population conditions in the senators’ states and the com
munication devices they use should help settle the issue.
The evidence in Tables 17 and 18 lends further support
to my thesis. It shows that more of the senators from
states with "mixed" populations and two-party political
systems - whether the states be divided into two or three
groups - use a larger number of communication methods and
techniques regularly than their more secure opposites.
Furthermore, the senators from modified one-party states
outrank their colleagues from one-party states in their use
of every technique and method except speeches.
However, the differences between the latter two groups
are also slight regarding the amount of use each makes of reprints from The Record, Interviews, and telephone calls.
This lack of much difference may simply mean that Inter views, speeches, reprints, and telephone calls are such universal tools of communication that few senators feel disinclined to use them dften.
In toto the weight of the evidence presented in this chapter and in Chapter V tends to confirm rather than negate my thesis: communication practices of the members of Congress are related to their Insecurity. In summary, therefore, a review will be made of the practices, status, and state environments of two congressmen who in their backgrounds and in their communication activities are both typical of broad cross sections of their fellow members. TABLE 17
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE STATE ENVIRONMENTS OF THE SENATORS AND THE METHODS THEY USE REGULARLY
Party System metnoas usea State Population Regularly^* One Two One Modified Two Party Party Party One Party Party Urban Mixed Rural Newsletters (20) 17 3 17 17 7 (23) 7 (50) 28 33 56 28 22 (50) 29 Record reprints 17 20 3 13 20 10 (23) 3 L2 33 33 1*1* 33 33 (5o) 11* Telecasts 7 (33) .. 7 (33) (23) 17 mm 17 (55) m 22 (55) . (78) 36 - Broadcasts 23 30 3 20 30 17 (33) 3 58 50 33 67 50 56 (71) 11* Government 23 30 3 20 30 7 (1*3) 3 bulletins 58 50 33 67 50 22 (93) 11* Letters 20 (Uo) 3 17 (1*0) 17 (37) 7 50 (67) 33 56 (671 56 (79) 29 Meetings 33 33 7 27 33 17 (37) 13 82 67 89 & 56 (79) 57 Press releases 36 5o t 23 (5o) ii 1*0 13 75 83 67 78 (831 89 86 57 1 2 - - 3 1 6 •The first row of figures in each horizontal colunn shows the percentage of the 30 senators in the sample who come from states with the political or population character istics listed in the column heading and use this particular method. **Thc second row of figures in each horizontal column shows what percentage of all the senators with the status listed in the column heading use this method. TABLE 18
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE STATE ENVIRONMENTS OF THE SENATORS AND THE TECHNIQUES THEY USE MOST
Party System State Population Techn^gues Used One Two One Modified Two Most Party Party Party One Party Party Urban Mixed Rural Interviews 17 (3U) 3 13 30 13 20 13 U5 33 50 U7 UU U3 57 Questnion-and- 17 11 26 13 17 1 answer meetings U5 31 - 63 31 UU 36 29 Telephone 13 (33) 3 10 (33) 13 (33) calls 36 (53) 33 37 (53) UU (71) Written reports 17 (37) m 17 37 17 (30) 7 U5 (58) - 63 _5_8 56 (6U) 29 Personal contacts 27 (53) 3 23 53 27 UO 13 73 (8U) 33 87 8U 89 86 57 Speeches 33 53 10 23 53 23 (U3) 20 91 8U 100 87 8U 78 (93) 86 - U - - 1 3 *The first row of figures in each horizontal column shows the percentage of the 30 senators in the sample who came from states with the political or population charac teristics listed in the column heading and use this particular method, b The second row of figures in each horizontal column shows what percentage of all the senators with the status listed in the column heading use this method. CHAPTER VII
PATTERNS AND AFTERTHOUGHTS
The general picture of congressmen and their communica
tion practices that was begun in Chapter II has now been
completed. In order to bring the main features of this picture into relief, let us examine the communication
patterns of Mr, McClellan and Mr. Ford, two congressmen
whose activities illustrate the major findings of this
study and lend support to its major premises.
Senator John L. McClellan (D., Ark.) and Representative
Gerald R. Ford, Jr. (R., Mich.) are typical of large blocs
of their fellow members of Congress in many respects.
Senator McClellan represents a rural one-party state
where supporters of the opposition are so rare that even
such major offices as that of Governor or United States
Senator sometimes are conceded to his party without any
contest.1 In contrast, Congressman Ford comes from an
urban, two-party state, and although his district has been more Republican than Democratic traditionally, between 1950
and 195^ the Democratic share of the congressional vote rose steadily from 32.9 per cent to 36.7 per cent of the total.^ Tfoerefore, two-party competition is part and parcel of the political environment In his district as in many others.
1The Democrats had no opposition in one gubernatorial contest and in four senatorial contests In Arkansas between 1928 and 1950. Sources George Gallup, et al. The Political Almanac, 1952 (Mew York: B. C. Forbes & Sons, 1552 ), p. Id4. ^Governmental Affairs Institute, America;. Votes, ed. by Richard M. Scammon (Mew York: Maomillaff,' 1958),“pT"T8 6 .
- 94 - 95 Regarding congressional influences, Senator McClellan
enjoys the prestige and power that accompany a position of
high seniority, even though his first entry into the Senate
in 1943 makes him a relative newcomer among the old-timers 3 in its ranks. On the other hand, Representative Ford's
status as a fourth-termer in 1955 put him in the ranks of
the 149 members with medium seniority. In 1957* he is still
in the medium seniority group, a group which had Included
all congressmen who had served anywhere from three consec utive through six non-consecutive terms when he entered it two years before.^
However, Mr. McClellan and Mr. Ford do resemble each other in one respect. Like a majority of the congressmen who stated their position, both the Senator and the
Representative consider themselves primarily leaders rather than followers of public opinion. Yet, there are more differences than similarities between the communication practices of these two congressmen. This Is demonstrated
In the following reports about their practices which were supplied by Senator McClellan's administrative assistant,
Mr. Ralph L. Matthews, and Representative Ford's secretary,
Mr. Frank Meyer.
^Congressional Directory, U. S. 84th Cone.. 1st sess. (March ,-19557°'PP. 190-195. 4ibid. pp. 193-204. 96 A typical senior senator from a rural, one-party state
Senator McClellan. -
The senator does not send out regular press releases or make regular broadcasts and telecasts. He does not send out any newsletters either, nor does he make any formal end-of-session reports to his constituents. He holds press conferences as news warrants, but he issues no press releases even then. Instead he calls in the wire services and leaves it up to the local papers to get their stories from the wires. He makes broadcasts and telecasts only by request and then only rarely.
In brief, according to Mr. Matthews, the Senator
believes it is "the boys who work quietly and get things done that stay here ([in the Senate} a long time."
Senator McClellan practices what he preaches in many other respects. With the possible exception of letters,
he does not make regular use of any of the eleven methods or materials of communication about which he was asked. Although he answers every letter he receives from Arkansas, the regularity of this practice depends upon the whims of his constituents rather than upon his own prior planning. Furthermore, of the nine techniques of communication
mentioned in the March questionnaire, Senator McClellan
makes great use of only one, namely, speeches. He makes no mass mailings of government bulletins,
but he will send them out on request. He does not use
polls, and he makes little use of reprints from The Record. He does not take the initiative in trying to Inform his
constituents about important pending legislation If they 97 are not already Interested In It. He has no basic mailing
list. Consequently, It is not surprising that he finds the
congressional stationery, telephone, and telegram allow
ances "more than adequate."
Our senator feels It Is part of his responsibility to inform himself of pending legislation, so he can do what is best for our people,
Mr. Matthews said. In this connection,
He takes account of informed letters from, for example, Joe Blow, who owns a small grocery stores and writes in and says, "SJR 11 will affect me in this way.'
He also keeps his state office open throughout the year and makes "extensive visits in the state during the five months' recess." However, he
has gotten back to the state only three times in this session because he is so busy on his committee.5 This is bad poil'tlcalTy.
Unlike Congressman Ford, who finds his local party helpful as an outlet for his weekly newsletters, Senator McClellan finds his party of little aid In keeping the voters Informed about his activities. As Mr. Matthews
9 explained, "Since we have Just got a one-party system, there's no occasion for the Party to help." A typical, member with medium seniority and from an urban, two-party district: Representative Ford. - In contrast, In his two-party district, Mr. Ford finds ample reason to utilize party assistance and a wide
^Italics supplied. 98 variety of communication devices* "Besides sending his
newsletters to district Republican Party leaders from the
precinct level on up, he circulates it among 3,000 other
individuals and all local newspapers," Mr. Meyer said. He went on to say:
The Congressman's recipients Include all who circulate petitions in his district; school board, county, and township officials, and those who signed the guest book when he went around the district in his 'mobile office*— a converted two- room house trailer— last year. We also sent out invitations to receive the newsletter to families in areas where the tendency to go Democratic was becoming evident.
In his letter of March 26, 1956, Mr. Ford noted that
his newsletter was "printed in from five to eight news
papers each week." He also said:
My weekly radio tape... is used by all seven radio stations in my district. Also, the one TV channel in my district generally uses a short film I make ehch week.
When I was in Washington three months later, however,
his assistant pointed out that he had temporarily dis
continued his broadcasts since several stations had
refused to continue carrying them without charge, that
is, as a public service, during the campaign period. In
addition, a change In the news policy of the local tele vision station had caused him to substitute bi-monthly films on request for the regular three-minute weekly shows he had formerly sent out on his own initiative. 99
The Congressman also uses many other methods and tech
niques of communication. He regularly sends out government
bulletins and press releases. He uses four of the nine
techniques of communication mentioned. Besides the "speech*’
technique employed by Senator McClellan, Representative Ford
uses interviews, personal contacts, and question-and-answer-
type meetings.
On the other hand, Mr. Ford does not use public opinion
polls. "He is not a poll-taker," according to Mr. Meyer,
"because he believes that simple 'Yes' and 'No' answers
cannot give reliable information about complex questions." Consequently, he does not need to be concerned about the
lack of congressional provisions for professional poll- taking assistance.
Neither is he concerned about the size of the provisions for long distance calls or wires, although in both cases he has more reason to be. "Even though he may and does run over his telephone and telegraph allowances," his secre tary said, "he considers the amounts allowed for telephone
calls and telegrams sufficient,^ for he or his friends make up for any overage." (nils is an interesting illus tration of how financial Independence can affect one's estimates of sufficiency.) Although he considers himself more of a leader than a follower of public opinion, he utilizes many techniques
^Italics supplied. in trying to keep informed about the views of his constit
uents. According to Mr. Meyer,
All of the daily and weekly newspapers that are published in the District are read by the Representative. Visitors from home, telephone calls, and telegrams are also useful. Furthermore,
he goes to the District at least once a month during the session, so he can discuss various items with the folks.
The relative frequency of his trips to his district
while Congress is in session suggests that members with less seniority are not as heavily burdened with com mittee assignments as their senior colleagues.
Like Senator McClellan, Mr. Ford makes good use of the months between sessions. During the adjournment peri ods, he takes advantage of his "innumerable opportunities to speak to groups and hear their views. Last year and this, he used his mobile office to get in touch with them," Mr. Meyer added.
Nevertheless, Mr. Ford "does not necessarily follow the comments he hears," Mr. Meyer said. "For example, he is for the continuance of the Foreign Aid program, even though many in the district oppose it." However, "to those who are against it, we give the reasons why the Representative favors it."
In other words, even though he is willing to take a stand on an issue, as the congressman from a two-party 101
district Mr. Ford considers It Important to explain why his
views are not in accord with those of some of his constit
uents .
Thus, as this study has shown, the communication
practices of Representative Ford and Senator McClellan
are typical of those of many members of Congress who are
products of similar environments.
Afterthoughts— Now for some afterthoughts: This study was designed to provide descriptions about certain practices
of its subjects, to identify common elements in them, and to discover whether there were any correlations between their practices and certain factors in their constit
uencies and in their congressional environment. In making this investigation, both quantitative and qualitative methods were used. After reviewing the
available literature, a working hypothesis was developed, and then a written poll and interviews were used to collect
data about the communication practices of the members of the 84th Congress. Next their replies were tabulated
and analyzed. Finally, they were evaluated in terms of my research and in the light of the research and specula
tions of others about the functions and duties of congress men. The purpose of this study was to isolate possible casual connections among a series of general and specific 102
variables; namely, the members' status In Congress, their state or district environments, and their overall and particular communication practices.
The study was undertaken on the assumption that the types and quantities of communications congressmen use are related to their own sense of security regarding their
chances of being re-elected. Their relative security is
roughly a function of their seniority positions, their own concepts of the role of congressmen as leaders or followers,
and the nature of their constituencies particularly with
respect to urban and rural characteristics.
The research disclosed significant differences between
the quantity of communication methods used regularly by the members from urban and rural states and districts; the urban legislators use many regularly, the rural legislators few. The differences between the communication practices of secure and insecure members approached significance in two cases. In the first, the relatively secure senators who were classified as leaders in the Senate used fewer methods regularly than their less secure opposites, the followers. In the second case, where the senators were divided into three groups according to their respective degrees of seniority, the quantity of communication tech niques used most was small for those with high seniority and large for the members with low seniority. 103 Furthermore, the senators who are non-leaders and who have low seniority positions and junior status In their states use more methods and techniques of communication than their opposites. Here again it is assumed that the
differences are due to the variations in the sense of security of the members In the opposing groups.
On the other hand, there were no significant dif
ferences between the number of methods or techniques used
by senators from states with diverse political systems.
Perhaps the similarities can be attributed to the fact
that 28 out of the 33 senators interviewed said that
their state parties were of little or no aid to them
between election campaigns.
Neither were there any significant differences be
tween the number of techniques used most by urban and
rural senators. As mentioned earlier in this study, it
seems likely that personal contacts, speeches, and tele phone calls are such universal communication techniques that most congressmen would use them often regardless of the nature of their constituencies.
Additional financial resources would have made it possible to examine a greater number of the variables that may be presumed to affect communication practices. In their absence, it was necessary to exclude consideration of the members’ practices during election campaigns. It also was necessary to exclude consideration of various 104
personal factors (such as the senators' and representatives'
talents for communication) that undoubtedly affect selection
among methods and techniques. In addition, limited re
sources made it impossible to make the extensive Investiga
tions required to obtain Information about each congressman's relation to the party in his district. Yet, no doubt, this
relationship also has some bearing on the members' communica tion practices.
Despite these limitations, an analysis of such evidence as it has been possible to assemble seems to Indicate that
there is some correlation between communication activities and Insecurity. For example, It has been shown that the members' patterns of communication vary if they come from urban rather than rural constituencies or if their seniority positions differ. In other words, their political activity in this area fits into the patterns of observations about congressmen that are standard fare in works on Congress.
Their communication patterns thus seem to stem from some thing more than completely random behavior.
However, the patterns of correlation that have been found are not so clearcut as to be completely unambiguous. Further investigation would be necessary before one could go beyond the Interrelations noted. Thus It appears that even with the evidence at hand, it has not been possible to isolate all of the forces that determine the communication practices of the members of Congress. APPENDIX
- 105 - APPENDIX I
Five hundred and twenty-nine congressmen were serving in the 2d Session of the 84th Congress between February and August of 1956 when this study was made. Early in March a congressional questionnaire-*- which had been pre-tested on a cross-section of the Ohio delegation was mailed to all of the members of each house. Twenty-four senators and 117 representatives or their assistants sent in replies or acknowledgments, including eight refusals and one death notice. The respondents included congressmen and congress women from every section of the nation. In origin, they reflected the geographic distribution in Congress almost identically. Sixteen per cent of the members came from the East Central states, for example, and 17 per cent of the replies came from the same area. Senators and representatives of both high and low seniority furnished answers, but the "junior members of both houses returned the largest number of questionnaires. Senator Ellender (D., La.) and Representative Jenkins (R., Ohio), who had served longer in their respective houses than all but six other members, had the greatest seniority of those who replied. At the other extreme, the practices of new members were represented by the answers of Senator Neuberger (D., Ore.) and Representative Thompson (R., N.J.), who were among the 56 congressmen serving their first terms in Congress. The following excerpts from their letters of reply illustrate their mixed, though generally cordial, reac tions to the purpose of the study and the request for assistance.
I return to you herewith the questionnaire and some news letters which I send to my constituents. I will be interested to know the results of your survey.
John J. Allen, Jr., 7th District, California I am glad to be able to reply.... (However,3 my own activities in this field have been such that they do not readily lend themselves to the cate gories you have indicated.
John F. Kennedy U. S. Senator, Massachusetts
^See Appendix II for copy of questionnaire.
- 106 - 107
Your questionnaire was filled out while I was on the train during a trip to my district. Un fortunately, your first letter and the address were lost but I did keep my completed questionnaire hoping that some time I would find a way of getting it to you.
Don Hayworth, M.C. 6th District, Michigan
Thank you very much for your recent.. .Congres sional questionnaire. I am terribly sorry I have not been able to return this to you earlier. I have been heavily engaged with farm legislation and appropriation items.
Milton R. Young U. S. Senator, North Dakota
I hope the information I have given you will be helpful, however, some of the questions asked are impossible to answer in a sensible and truly informative way without considerable difficulty.
Clarence J. Brown, M.C. 7th District, Ohio Your letter of March 5 addressed to Congress man Ellsworth was received and your request has been noted. I am responding to your letter possibly in a manner not anticipated by you. Several years back I took my graduate work at Ohio State and Cso3 1 thought I might.. .comment specifically on some of the matters presented in your questionnaire.
H. S. Garber, Secretary to Harris Ellsworth, M.C.
During the summer of 1955* the questionnaire re sponses were supplemented by lengthy interviews with 33 senators and 45 representatives or their staff members and 15 minute spot interviews with 60 other senators.2 The author's reception was equally cordial in the offices of the 32 congressmen who had not, and the 46 congress men who had, acknowledged the original survey request. It proved possible to obtain the Information sought in all but five of the 143 offices visited.
2See Appendix III for a copy of the Interview questionnaire. APPENDIX II
CONGRESSIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE A . The Questions:
1. Do you try to contact at least some of your con stituents regularly, that is, once a month or more?
Yes No
2 . What three groups among your constituents do you contact most frequently?
Agricultural groups ___ Civic groups ___ Business groups ___ Nationality groups Labor groups ___ Religious groups __ Teachers ___ Youth groups ___ Party members______Other groups (please specify) ___
3. Please check any of the following methods or materials that you use regularly:
Government bulletins Newspaper adver- ___ or pamphlets tisements Items from The______Press releases ___ Record Public opinion ____ Letters, exclu- polls sive of personal Radio broadcasts ___ mail Television programs___ Meetings ___ Others (please Newsletters specify) .... _ 4. According to common opinion among your constit uents, what groups provide the leaders of public opinion In your constituency?
Do you contact any of these groups or their leaders regularly?
Yes No
- 108 - io9 What techniques of communication do you use most?
Debates Speeches ___ Interviews ____ Telephone calls ___ Panel discussions ____ Written reports ___ Personal contacts ____ Other techniques ___ Question and an- (please specify...___ swer type meetings____
What type of communication cost you the most this year?
Letters, exclusive Television programs of personal mail Filmed Newsletters "Live" Newspaper adver Other (please tisements specify ...... Radio programs "Live" ____ Taped ____ Both
How many of the persons on your staff who handle your communications fall into each of the follow ing categories?
Congressional payroll ____ Private payroll ____ Volunteers
What was the range in total personal cost to you for the least and most expensive types of com munication that you have used throughout this session of Congress?
Least: $______Most: $ ______
Do most of the local radio, newspaper, and tele vision companies In your state or district carry your broadcasts, press releases, and telecasts regularly?
Radio stations Yes _____ No_____ Newspapers Yes No Television stations Yes ______No_____
Do you notify your constituents when they can hear or see programs in which you are a parti cipant? Yes No 110 12. How do you select the subject matter about which you communicate with your constituents, that is, what sources of information guide you in making your choice?
Actions taken by organizations in your constituency______Comments by party leaders______Conversations with community leaders______Editorials______Letters from con stituents______Newspapers in your constituency______Presidential mes sages Surveys of public opinion ____ Other sources (please s p e c i f y ......
13. If you take polls of the opinions of your con stituents or have them taken for, you, do you have a specific method of determining what items to include?
Yes ___ No___ I do' not take polls ____ If nYes,H please explain your m e t h o d ......
1^. If you wanted a majority of the voters In your constituency to know your stand on an issue, what method would you use to Inform t h e m ? ....
Why’/.r*...... 15. Among the communication techniques that you use, which provides the most effective method of com municating with:
a. The leaders of public opinion in your con stituency? ......
Why? ...... 111
b. A majority of your constituents? ......
W h y ? ...... 16. Do you regard your constituency as primarily:
a. Agricultural Industrial_____ A mixture of both ____
b. Rural ____ Urban_____ A mixture of both __ Comments: If you care to describe any of your communication practices that are not covered by the preceding questions or if you would like to comment upon any part of this questionnaire, please do so here ......
’(Name ancTTitTeJ
(district or state) The Answers: The maximum number of congressmen who sent in replies to any of the 16 questions is 105 for the representatives and 22 for the senators. For each question, we will list the total number of members from each house who answered it and show how their replies were distributed.
1. Contact some constituents regularly: 20 Sens. 93 Re p s . 119 Total Yes 17 7 y '' 94 No 3 18 21 Groups contacted most frequently: 17 Sen3.... 96 Reps.^r, 113 Total Agriculture 7 4? Business 7 35 42 Labor 1 16 17 Teachers 0 4 4 Party members 5 17 22 Civic 2 33 35 Nationality 2 6 8 Religious 0 7 7 Youth 0 8 8 Others 5 23 28 More than three H4 24 28 Less than three 0 9 9 f t - tf. A ' ^ 'j, ^ yrW ' * * f ‘
112
3. Methods used regularly:
22 Sens. 100 Reps. 122 Total Government Pam- phlets 13 68 81 Items from The Record 8 36 45 Letters, not personal 10 52 62 Meetings 11 48 59 newsletters 14 58 72 Newspaper adver tisements 0 4 4 Press releases 17 76 93 Polls 4 34 38 Radio 13 41 54 Television 10 41 51 Miscellaneous 2 8 10 Croups which provide state or local leaders of public opinion: 9 Sens. 70 Reps. 79 Total Agriculture b 5ir r - trj— Professionals 5 14 19 Business 3 38 41 Religious 2 20 22 Civic 3 33 36 Labor 3 31 34 Party 2 12 14 Educational 2 8 10 Press 2 16 18 Others 6 39 45 Contact one or more of these groups of their leaders regularly: 11 Sens. 82 Reps. 93 Total Yes 7 54 51 Mo 4 28 32
6. Techniques used most: 20 Sens. 101 Reps. 121 Total 5 -* ■ Debates 1“ 3 Interviews 4 34 38 Panel discussions 3 21 24 Personal contacts 12 67 79 Question-and^answer type meetings 5 45 50 Speeches 16 77 93 Telephone calls 8 40 48 Mritten reports 7 44 51 Others 5 38 43 r - t * - '.wr*?;--i;
113 7. Type of communication that cost members most in 1956: 12 Sens, 90 Reps. 102 Total Letters 3 '“'"31 — 3W------Newsletters 4 34 38 Newspaper advertise ments 0 6 6 Radio programs 3 23 26 Television programs 3 17 20 Others 5 23 28 8. Number of persons handling communications who fall in the following categories: congressional pay roll, private payroll, and volunteers. Eighteen senators and 96 representatives answered this question. However, their replies were so dispa rate or general that no meaningful tabulation of them was possible. To illustrate, some congress men simply checked the congressional payroll category without giving any indication of the number they employed. Others stated the number on this payroll, but were vague about the number on their private payroll.
9. Methods of communication that cost the members least and most in 1956: The range ran from $5.00 to $3,000. Eight senators and 71 representatives answered the question. As in question eight, however, their answers were too varied to be meaningful. Also, in many cases, the members said that they kept no records on the subject.
10. Whether or not most of the local mass media carry their releases regularly: 19 Sens.a 95 Reps.b 114 Total Radio Yes 13 65 78 No 2 22 23 Press Yes 13 74 87 No 3 13 15 Television Yes 10 55 65 No 2 30 32 a8 of the 19 senators answered but one or two c the three parts. tol8 of the 95 representatives answered but one of two of the three parts. 114
Do you let constituents know when they can see hear programs you are on:
21 S e n s . 91 Reps 112 Total Yes 99 42 .. 5 T ' No 12 49 61 Sources which help members decide upon subject matter of their communications: 18 Sens. 93 Reps . Ill Total Actions by local organizations 7 31 38 Comments by party leaders 1 14 15 Conversations with community leaders 3 40 43 Editorials 6 24 30 Letters from constituents 6 58 64 Local newspapers 5 32 37 Presidential messages 2 20 22 Surveys of public opinion - 12 12 Other sources: Congressional action 4 17 21 Current events - 4 4 Own Judgment 4 9 13 Miscellaneous - 9 9
If member takes polls , does he have a specific method of determining what Items to Include:
19 Sens. 93 Reps. 112 Total Yes 28 28 No 2 12 14 Do not take polls 17 53 70 No. who explained - their method 30 30
Methods used when seeking to Inform a majority of their constituents about their stand on an issue: 19 Sens. 92 Reps. 111 Total Letters 5 "TS 21.. Newsletters 5 21 26 Press releases 12 57 69 Radio 6 22 28 Television 5 8 13 All three mass media 4 17 21 Miscellaneous 1 7 8 115
Reasons for choices:
Best coverage 43 49 Media willing to carry material 2 8 10 Personal contact O 4 4 Miscellaneous 3 11 14 None given 2 10 12
15a, Techniques of communication used that are con sidered most effective methods of communicating with local leaders of public opinion:
14 Sens g---- 69 Reps. 83 Total Letters 23— ------35““ Newsletters 1 14 15 Press releases 1 16 17 Radio 4 4 Television Radio and Television 2 All three media Other 8
Reasons for choices: 3 Sens. 54 Reps. 57 Total Best, individual,or widest coverage 13 13 Direct or personal contact 20 20 Speedy coverage 1 1 Miscellaneous 3 15 18
15b. Techniques of communication used that are con sidered most effective methods of communicating with a majority of their constituents: 11 Sens. 69 Reps. 80 Total Letters “ST TT T 5 " Newsletters 1 15 16 Press releases 6 36 42 Radio 2 16 18 Television 2 10 12 All three mass media 2 5 7 Other 10 10 Reasons for choices: 6 Sens. 44 Reps. 50 Total
Best, individual or widest coverage 5 31 36 Direct or personal contact - 5 5 Speedy coverage 1 1 Miscellaneous 1 7 8
They regard their constituencies as primarily: 18 Sens. 92 Reps. 110 Total a .Agricultural 4“ 53 521 Industrial 2 19 21 Mixture 12 53 65
18 Sens. 33 Reps. 51 Total b.Rural T 3 T 3 Urban 1 19 20 Mixture 14 4 18 APPENDIX III
Interview Material:
A. The Questions:
1. Do most of the local radio, newspaper, and television companies in your state or district carry your broad casts, press releases, and telecasts regularly?
Radio stations Yes __ No __ Don't know __ Newspapers Yes __ No __ Don't know __ Television stations Yes __ No __ Don't know __
2. Are the newspapers In the state capitol more likely to carry the news releases from their United States Senators than the other major newspapers In the state?
Yes __ No __ Don't know __
3. Do the local stations usually carry the congressman's program If It is carried by a national or regional network?
Radio stations Yes _ No___ Don't know _____ Television stations Yes _ No___ Don't know __
4. When the local newspapers carry your press releases are they most often handled:
As news items Yes _ No___ Don't know __ As editorial items Yes _ No___ Don't know _____
5. Are your programs carried as often by the local sta tions when they are tape-recorded or filmed instead of "live" broadcasts? Yes __ No___ Don't know __
6. Do you send out regular press releases, broadcasts, and telecasts? Yes __ No___
6a. Whether you do or do not send out all of the items listed in question six regularly, which, if any, of the following methods do you use regularly and which Irregularly:
Press releases Regularly __ Irregularly __ Broadcasts Regularly _____ Irregularly__ Telecasts Regularly __ Irregularly __ Newsletters Regularly __ Irregularly __ 118 6b. At what Intervals do you issue the material you send out regularly? Semi- Bl- Daily wkly. Wkly. Wkly. Mo. Other Press releases Broadcasts Telecasts Newsletters ______
6c. At what intervals do you issue the material you send out irregularly? As news By re- During warrants quest campaign Other Press releases ______Broadcasts ______Telecasts ______Newsletters ______
6d. To whom do you distribute your press releases and newsletters?
Press releases Newsletters Washington press corps Local press direct Individuals or groups: Party Public Private Mailing list
7. It is generally understood that congressmen both lead and follow public opinion. In trying to follow public opinion, how do you cope with the difficult problems of trying to find out what views your constituents do have?
8. Although members of Congress both lead and follow public opinion from time to time, do you consider yourself more of a leader of public opinion or more of a follower?
9. We know that the voters are often uninformed or ill- informed about legislative proposals that don't affect them directly. For instance, the rural resident prob ably couldn't tell us much about public housing and the urban resident would not be likely to know too much about price supports or the soil bank plan. If 119 you believe a pending bill is of considerable import ance to your constituents even though they may not realize it, what methods of communication would help you most in your efforts to inform them about the facts or stakes involved in it?
10. If you do try to Inform your constituents about bills of major importance to them at any time, what methods do you use?
11. What sources of information in your state provide you with the most reliable barometers of public opinion among your constituents?
12. what groups in your constituency are most politically active, that is, most prone: (a; to let you know their views on current Issues before Congress, (b) to organ ize support for or opposition to those who do not en dorse their views, and (c) to vote as a body on public issues that affect them directly?
13. Is the party of much aid to you in informing the public about your activities in Congress between election campaigns? If not, why?
14. Are the congressional provisions for the following materials or media adequate? Yes No No Answer Stationery ______Telephone calls______Telegrams ______Radio ______Television ______
15. Do you make mass mailings of government bulletins or other materials? Yes ____ No _____
16. ¥hat types of bulletins, letters, and other material do you send out and on what basis: by request or on your own Initiative?
17. Do you issue reprints from The Record frequently?
18. Do you maintain a state office?
19. Do you use public opinion polls? 120
B. The Answers of the Senators:
1.-3. The replies to these three questions have been consolidated into a single answer to this question: Does the senator indicate that the media fail to carry his material for any other than mechanical reasons?
Yes 14 No 19 If '’yes,” in each answer the number who did: 0ne-7, Two-3, Three-2
If "yes," the number for each medium was: Radio-4, Press-9, TV-0, All three-1
4. V/hether the senator receives a fair amount of editorial comment in the local press: Yes 23 No 6 Don't know 4
5. Answers omitted because variations were so great no summary of the replies would be meaningful,
6. Only one senator sends out press releases, broad casts, and telecasts regularly. The other senators send out one or two regularly and issue other releases or programs Irregularly, or send out everything on an irregular basis.
6a. Number of senators who send out each type of release regularly and number who issue each irregularly:
Regularly Irregularly Press releases 18 14 Broadcasts 15 19 Telecasts 6 27 Newsletters 10 - 4
6b. Intervals at which they distribute the material they do send out regularly: Semi- Bi- Daily Wkly. Wkly. Wkly. Mo. Other Press releases 7 2 9 Broadcasts 9 4 2 Telecasts 2 1 1 Newsletters 7 1 1 1 6c. Intervals at which they distribute the material they send out irregularly: „ _ ° ^As news By re- During warrants quest campaign Other Press releases 16 - - 1* Broadcasts 6 7 1 5* Telecasts 8 10 2 8# Newsletters - 4 ♦One senator issues no press releases and makes no broadcasts #Another senator does not use television at all. 121
6d. Individuals and groups to whom press releases and news letters are distributed: Press releases Newsletters Washington press corps 7 - Local press 40 8 Individuals or groups: Party 3 4 Public — 1 Private — 5 Mailing list 5 9 7. Methods and sources used in trying to find out views of constituents:
Contacts: Mail 28 Personal 12
With whom: General public 2 Pressure groups 7 Party 2 Local experts on issue 6 Others 10
District office: 2 Trips to district: 10 Polls 3 Press 7 Miscellaneous 6 Himself 5 Newsletter 1
Range in number of methods and sources used: One senator uses 8, six use only 1, the mode is 4 (11 are In this group), the median is 3.5, and the mean Is 2.7.
8. Number of senators who consider themselves prima rily leaders of public opinion or primarily followers:
Leaders 22 Followers 2
9. Number of senators who do and do not attempt to inform their constituents about bills of considerable importance to them even If they do not realize that they are: Do 13 Do not 16 12?
10. Methods used when attempting to inform constituents about bills of major importance to them: Senators Press releases 22 Radio 13 Television 7 Trips to district 4 Newsletters 8 Letters 10 Speeches 9 Reprints from The Record 1 Other 5
11. Sources in the state which serve as reliable barom eters of local public opinion: Senators Press 16 Pressure group spokesmen 6 Party members 8 Personal acquaintances 6 District office 3 State and local officials 4 Polls 1 Others, for example: 22 Individuals, including colleagues and com munity leaders 5 Local organiza tions 3 Mail 12 Trips to district 7
12. The following answers must be taken with reservations since many respondents said they could only cite organizations which did one or two rather than all three of the things mentioned in the question. These, then, are the groups cited as most politically active in the 20 states in the sample: Senators Agriculture 20 Business 18 Labor 31 Government employees 7 Veterans 9 Professional groups 6 Retired pensioneers 6 Others, for example: 16 Minority groups 7 Women1s groups 6 Groups in favor of public power 3 123
13. Senators who reported that their party does or does not help them inform the public about their activities between campaigns:
Does help 5 Does not help 28
Reasons why it does not:
It concentrates on election period 7 It is weak or divided 6 Limited funds prevent it 3 One-party system 2 Other 9
14. Number of senators who do or do not consider the con- gressional provisions for the items listed adequate
Do Do not No reply S t a t i o n e r y 22 10 1 Telephone calls 15 10 8 Telegrams 17 8 8 R a d i o 4 0 31 T e l e v i s i o n 4 0 31
Num b e r of senators who do and do not make mass mail ings: 18 do, 15 do not.
16. Number who send out each of the various types of materials and the bases on which they do so:
Own Ini By re tiative quest Agricultural bulletins 8 10 Infant care booklets 5 11 Cook books 4 7 Congratulatory letters 12 Patriotic Items 3 17. Number who do and do not issue Record reprints frequently:
Do 15 Do not 18
18. Number who do and do not maintain state offices:
Do 24 Do not 8 No answer 1 Only four senators Indicated that their offices are not open throughout the year. 19. Number of senators who do and do not use polls: 8 do 20 do not, 5 did not reply.
The Answers of the Representatives:
1.-3. The replies to these three questions have been consolidated into a single answer to this question: Does the representative indicate that the media fail to carry his material for any other than mechanical reasons ?
Yes 10 No 34
If "yes," in each answer the number who did: One-8 , Two-2, Three-0
If "yes," the number for each medium was: Radio-2, Press-b, TV-2, All three-0
4. Whether the representative receives a fair amount of editorial comment In the local press:
Yes 30 No 7 No answer 7
5. Answers omitted because variations were so'great no summary of the replies would be meaningful.
6 . Only one representative sends out press releases, broadcasts, and telecasts regularly, 12 Issue one or two Items regularly and others Irregularly, or send out everything on an irregular basis.
6a. Number of representatives who send out each type of release regularly and number who issue each irregularly: Regularly Irregularly Press releases 13 28 Broadcasts 16 18 Telecasts 10 27 Newsletters 17 3
6b. Intervals at which they distribute the material they do send out regularly: Semi- Bi- Daily Wkly. Wkly. Wkly. Mo. Other Press releases - - 12 1 Broadcasts - 1 14 1 1 - Telecasts - - 9 - - 1 Newsletters - 10 2 2 3 125 be. Intervals at which they distribute the material they send out irregularly: As news By re- During warrants quest campaign Other Press releases 23 1 - 7 Broadcasts 5 3 2 18 Telecasts 4 6 2 20 Newsletters 1 - - 2
6d. Individuals and groups to whom press releases and newsletters are distributed:
Press releases Newsletters Washington press corps 13 - Local press 43 16 Individuals or groups: Party 3 7 Public 1 - Private 3 17 Mailing list - 22
7. Methods and sources used in trying to find out views of constituents:
Contacts: Mail 37 Personal 25
With whom: General public 8 Pressure groups 5 Party 1 Local experts on issue 6 Others
District office: 2 Trips to district 18 Polls 6 Press 6 Miscellaneous 7 Own knowledge 7
Range In number of methods and sources used: Two representatives use 6, three use only 1, the mode is 2 (13 are in this group), and the median is 3.5 and the mean 3.2.
8. Number of representatives who consider themselves primarily leaders of public opinion or primarily followers:
Leaders 25 Followers 7 126
9. Number of representatives who do and do not attempt to Inform their constituents about bills of considerable Importance to them even if they do not realize that they a r e :
Do 31 Do not 12
10. Methods used when attempting to Inform constituents about bills of major Importance to them:
Representatives
Press releases 15 Radio 9 Telev i s i o n 6 Trips to district 2 Newsletters 11 Letters 10 Speeches 4 Reprints from The R e c o r d 4 Other 99
11. Sources in the state which serve as reliable barom eters of local public opinion:
Representatives Press 8 .Pressure group spokesmen 11 Party members 9 Personal acquaintances 13 District office 2 State and local officials 3 Polls 3 Others, for example: 32 Individuals, including col leagues and community leaders 4 Local organizations Mail 12 Trips to district 9
12. The following answers must be taken with reservations since many respondents said they could only cite organizations which did one or two rather than all three of the things mentioned in the question. These, then, are the groups cited as most politically active.
Representatives Agriculture 12 Business 19 Labor 22 127 Government employees 10 Veterans 23 Professional groups 4 Retired pensioneers 4 Others, for example: 20 Minority groups 6 Women's groups 9 Groups in favor of public power 4
13. Representatives who reported that their party does or does not help them inform the public about their activities between campaigns:
Does help 6 Does not help 38 Reasons why it does not: It concentrates on election period 13 It is weak or divided 4 Limited funds prevent it 1 One-party system 6 Other 11
14. Number of representatives who do or do not consider the congressional provisions for the items listed adequate: Do Do not No reply Stationery 30 11 3 Telephone calls 27 12 5 Telegrams 30 9 3 Radio 4 1 39 Television 3 - 41 15. Number of representatives who do and do not make mass mailings: Do 31 Do not 4 No reply 9
16. Number who send out each of the various types of materials and the bases on which they do so: Own ini- By tiative request Agricultural bulletins 22 7 Infant care booklets 28 4 Cook books 19 7 Congratulatory letters 8 Patriotic items 7
17. Number who do and do not issue Record reprints frequently: Do 4 Do not 26 No reply 14 128
18. Number who do and do not maintain district offices: 31 do, 3 do not, 10 did not reply.
19. Number who do and do not use polls: 14 do, 27 do not, 3 did not reply. APPENDIX IV
Short interview questions and replies:
1. Does the senator take polls? 6 do, 54 do not.
2. Does the senator send out newsletters? 26 do, 34 do not.
3. Does the senator make broadcasts regularly? 30 do, 30 do not.
4. Does the senator make telecasts regularly? 19 do, 4l do not.
5. How often does the senator get back to his home state during the session? Senators One to five times 19 Six to ten times 20 Eleven to 15 times 4 Over 15 9 Miscellaneous 3 No reply 5
- 129 - APPENDIX V
Our analysis of this problem is based on the practices of 31 United States Senators who served during the 2d session of the 84th Congress. They came from 18 states In the Union and included within their ranks both the junior and the senior senators from thirteen states. Together they had served a total of 247 years, the range going from one year to 29 , the average being seven and nine-tenths years, and the mode, seven. For the entire Senate the range In 1956 was from one year to 34, the average: eight and one-tenth years, and there were two modes: one of three years, the other of seven. Of course the membership of the national senate is not equally distributed among the various sections of the nation. Table 1 shows the percentage of the 96 senators who come from each of the seven political-geographic regions listed,2 and the percentages of senators In our sample from these sections. The states Included in each section are APPENDIX TABLE 1
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF UNITED STATES SENATORS
Political The 31 Senators Geographic All 96 Senators Interviewed Regions: % %
New England 12.5 12.9
Middle Atlantic 12.5 12.9 East Central 8.3 16.1
West Central 16.6 12.9
Mountain 1 6 .6 22.5
Pacific 6.2 6.5 South 27.0 16.1 Source: Congressional Directory, 84th Cong., 2d sess. (Washington, 195b }, pp. 214-16. 1 Ibid., pp. 214-16. 2The regional groupings are those used by George Gallup in The Political Almanac, 1952 (New York: B. C. Forbes, 1952), pp.HET arid X.------130 - 131 as follows:
(1) New England: Connecticut New Hampshire Maine Rhode Island Massachusetts Vermont
(2) Middle Atlantic: Delaware New York Maryland Pennsylvania New Jersey West Virginia
(3) East Central: Illinois Michigan Indiana Ohio
(4) West Central: Iowa Nebraska Kansas North Dakota Minnesota South Dakota Missouri Wisconsin
(5) Mountain: Arizona Nevada Colorado New Mexico Idaho Utah Montana Wyoming
(6) Pacific: California Washington Oregon
(7) South: Alabama North Carolina Arkansas Oklahoma Florida South Carolina Georgia Tennessee Kentucky Texas Louisiana Virginia Mississippi
•40 « # -• APPENDIX VI
In classifying the senators as to seniority, two methods were used. In the first, we found the halfway mark'in length of service for all senators, namely, midway through the ten who "began their service on January 3, 1949 j then all who had served longer were counted as high seniority members and tne balance as low. Under the second method, the senators were divided Into approximate thirds on the basis of their length of service and then were classified as members with high, medium, or low seniority. Table 2 contains a comparison of the seniority positions of all 96 senators and the 33 senators In our sample. APPENDIX TABLE 2
SENIORITY POSITIONS OP MEMBERS OP THE SENATE
The 33 Senators All 96 Senators Interviewed i> %
Method 1 high Seniority 50 46 Low Seniority 50 54
Method 2 High Seniority 32 28 Medium Seniority 36 39 Low Seniority 31 33
Source: Congressional Directory, 84th Cong., 2d sess. (Washington, 1956), pp. 214-216.
As shown in Table 1 in Appendix V and In Table 2 above, in geographic distribution and seniority range the sena torial sample closely resembles the larger group from which It was drawn. However, it was not possible to make a complete determination of how closely the sample approxi mates the total membership with regard to the number of public opinion leaders and followers within its ranks. We asked whether or not the senators considered themselves primarily leaders of public opinion or followers. Nineteen of the 24 who committed themselves said, "Leader," but since we were not able to obtain self-ratings from the other 72 senators, we do not know whether or not the distri bution in our sample is skewed. - 132 - 133
We faced a similar problem In using an analysis of the members1 ratings as leaders or followers within the Senate as a standard for checking their communication practices. The Informed observer who made these ratings for us has been in contact with official Washington, including Congress, for enough years to warrant exceptional confidence in his rating ability, but he was not inclined to supply such a rating for members outside the sample. For our third leader-follower dichotomy, we arbi trarily classified the senators either as those who are, or those who are not, seeking to lead national opinion on the basis of this standard: the number of newspaper references made to each senator in comparison to all — excepting the three who died In 1955 or 1956 — in the Mew York Times between January 1, 1955 and December 31, 1955. Thereferences for 1955 were used Instead of those for 1956, since 1955 was not an election year and this study deals with congressional practices between rather than during campaigns. Using this classification standard, it was possible to check the representativeness of the sample. The median number of references made to the members of the sample and to all senators, namely, 40 and 39-5# respec tively, and the 55 mean references received by the Interviewed senators as against the 5^.^ references received by all senators indicate : that both groups are almost Identical In this respect. APPENDIX VII
A chi square test Is used to determine whether or not there is a significant difference between the patterns of distribution of specified factors or characteristics in each of the groups or subjects being compared. The dif ferences are considered significant when the value of chi square is high enough to indicate that they would have a probability (P) of occurring solely by chance in only five out of 100 cases or less. After ascertaining the value of chi square, therefore, one checks It with a probability table to determine whether or not, in technical terms, this value shows that the difference noted is at the five per cent level of confidence or less. The probability that a difference Is not due to chance alone Increases as the level of confidence decreases. To illustrate, a comparison was made of the number of methods used regularly by senators from urban and rural states and it yielded a chi square value of 4.6. Ihis value, when checked In a probability table, showed that the dif f erei ce was significant at a level of confidence somewhere between two per cent and five per cent. In other words, the P value was greater than .02 and less than .05. This means that the observed difference between the quantity of methods used regularly by urban and rural senators was one that would only occur solely by chance somewhere between two out of 100 times and fine out of 100 times. A P value greater than five per cent means that any differences found to exist between the groups compared are most probably due to chance. However, If the P value falls between the five per cent and ten per cent levels of confidence, the difference is said to be approaching significance; that is, there Is some reason to believe that the difference might not be due merely to chance.
1Quinn McNemar.Psychological Statistics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 19^9), pp. 186-187, T9T-T94, 200-201.
- 134 - APPENDIX VIII
With regard to their communication practices two standards were employed in classifying the senators:
1. the number of methods of communication they use regularly, and
2. (>the number of techniques they use most.
The following methods or techniques were used In categories one and two^respectively:
Category 1 Category 2
1. Government bulletins or 1. Debates pamphlets 2. Interviews 2. Items from The Record 3. Panel discussions 3. Letters, exclusive of 4. Personal contacts personal mail 5. Question and answer 4. Meetings type meetings 5. Newsletters 6. Speeches 6. Newspaper advertisements 7. Telephone calls 7. Press releases 8. Written reports 8. Public opinion polls 9. Other techniques 9. Radio broadcasts 10. Television programs 11. Others
The range in the number of methods used regularly was from zero through eight, and the mean was four. With regard to the techniques used most, the range was from one through nine and the mean was three and eight-tenths. As noted in Table 3 on the following page, the senators have been divided into two groups: the first consisting of those who use few or many methods or techniques, and the second including those who use a low, medium, or high number of methods or techniques.
- 135 - 136 APPENDIX TABLE 3
DISTRIBUTION OP SENATORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NUMBER OF METHODS AND TECHNIQUES OP COMMUNICATION USED
No. of Methods No. of Techniques Used Regularly Used Most
Few Many Few Many Group 1: (0-4) (5-8 ) (1-4.5) (4.5-8)
33 Senators:* 15 15 15 15 Low Medium High Low Medium High Group 2: (1-3)(4-5) (6-8) (1-3) (4) (5-9)
33 Senators:* 13 5 12 11 8 11
♦Two of the 33 did not supply complete data about either the methods or techniques they use regularly or most and two other senators supplied complete data about either their methods or their techniques instead of both.
Source: Questionnaire responses of 33 senators APPENDIX IX
Under the classification method used by Ranney and Kendall, there are 26 two-party states, 12 modified one- party states, and ten one-party states. For our distinc tion between one-party and two-party states, we combined all those they listed as having modified one-party systems with those said to have one-party systems and called all 22 of them one-party states. This group includes:
Alabama North Carolina Arkansas North Dakota' Florida Oklahoma Georgia Oregon Iowa Pennsylvania Kansas South Carolina Kentucky South Dakota Louisiana Tennessee Maine Texas Mississippi Vermont New Hampshire Virginia
Those whose names are underscored are the ones Ranney and Kendall term "modified one-party states."
- 137 - APPENDIX X
Under the urban category in our urban-rural dichotomy, we include the 30 states which, in 1950, had over half of their populations in urban territory. V/here we use a three-way division of the states, the urban group includes all states where 65.0 per cent to over 86 per cent of their residents live in urban territory, the mixed group includes the states which have 50.0 to 64.9 per c e n O f " their population in urban territory, and the rural states are those which have 49.9 per cent or less of thb'ir re'si- dents in urban territory. These distinctions are based on the 1950 Census of Population as reported by Howard G. Brunsman^ "Urban Places and Population," in The Municipal Yearbook, I956.1 Sixteen states were included in each of those three groups. In our sample of 30 senators, nine came from urban, 15 from mixed, and 8 from rural states.
^Chicago: International City Managers1 Assn., pp, 19 andl 220. 0 ,
- 138 - BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Bailey,. Stephen K. and Howard D. Samuel. Congress at Work. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1952.
Brunsman, Howard G. "Urban Places of Population," In The Municipal Yearbook, 1956. Chicago: International City Managers* Association, 1956. pp. 19-24.
Dahl, Robert A. Congress and Foreign Policy. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 195C.
Ernst, Morris L. The First Freedom. New York: Macmillan Co., 1946.
Fulbright, J. VS. "The Legislator," in The Works of the Mind. Chicago: University of cKicagoPress, 1947. ppT*119-134
Galloway, George B. Congress at the Crossroads. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 194b.
Gallup, George and the staff of the American Institute of Public Opinion. The Political Almanac, 1952. New York: B. C. Forbes & Sons, 1 9 5 ^
Governmental Affairs Institute. America Votes, ed. Richard M. Scammon. New York: Macmillan Co., 1956.
de Grazia, Alfred. "Research on Voters and Elections," in Research Frontiers in Politics and Government. Washington, b. C.: The Brookings Institution, 1955. pp. 104-133.
Griffith, Ernest S. Congress: Its Contemporary Role. New York: New York University Press, 1951.
Gross, Bertram M. The Legislative Struggle. New York: McGraw-Hill BooITCoTTT^j:------—
Kane, Joseph Nathan. Famous First Facts. New York: H. W. Wilson Co., 1950. Kefauver, Estes and Jack Levin. A Twentieth Century Congress. New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce, 1947^
Kennedy, John F. Profiles In Courage. New York: Harper & Bros., 1955. Kerr, Clara Hannah. The Origin and Development of the United States Senate. Ithaca, Wew York: Xhdrus and Church, lo'95. - 139 - 140
Key, V. 0. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 194$.
McNemar, Quinn. Psychological Statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1949.
Morse, Wayne. "What Do the American People Want fr'pm Their Politicians," in Edmund J. James Lectures in Government, 5th Ser. Urbana, Illinois: University'"of’ iTTintbisV '195'1. PP. 9-34.
Ranney, Austin and Willmoore Kendall. Democracy and the American Party System. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., ------
Rosten, Leo C. The Washington Correspondents. New York: Harcourt, Brace & CoT, 1937.
de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America, ed. Phillips Bradl^r. 2 vols. New York: TTTfred A. Knopf, 1945.
Voorhis, Jerry. Confessions of a Congressman. New York: Doubleday & Co., 194b.
White, William S. Citadel: The Story of the United States Senate. New Yorlcj Harper & bros., 1^45.
Wiley, Alexander. Laughing with Congress. New York: Crown Publishing Co., 1§47.
Articles in Newspapers
Anderson, Jack and Fred Blumenthal. "What Your Congressman Can Do for You," Washington Post and Times Herald (Washington, D.C.) June 12, 1953* Parade sec., pp. 10-15.
Baker, Russell. "Congress Flocks to TV Bandwagon," New York Times, June 27, 1955* magazine sec., p. 43.
Baker, Robert E. "Lawmakers 'Air' Selves at Cut Rate," Washington Post and Times Herald (Washington, D.C.), Februar3TT3, 1953* p. Ed.
"Carl Hayden Lacks Earmarks of Typical Capitol Congressman," Arizona Dally Star (Tucson), April 7, 1957, p. 2.
"Congressmen Flood Nation with 'Propaganda* at Public Cost, Folding-Room Check Shows," Washington Post and Times Herald (Washington, D.C.), April 13, 1052, p. 2M. Dixon, George. "Washington Scene," Washington Post and Times Herald (Washington, D. C.), July 2T, 195*V' p. If.'
"Pranking Cost Set at One Million," New York Times, January 6, 1955, P. 4.
"Press Magazine Takes a Look at Congressmen's Newsletters, Roll Call (Washington, D. C.), August 25, 1955, p. 6.
"Prestige of Press Has Increased on the Hill," Roll Call (Washington, D. C.), June 28, 1956, p. 14.
Periodicals
Bonilla, Prank. "When Is Petition Pressure?" Public Opinion Quarterly, XX, 1 (Spring, 1952), 39~ ^ & T .
Cater, Douglas. "Every Congressman a Television Star," Reporter, XII, 12 (June 16, 1955), 26-28.
Dexter, Lewis Anthony. "What Do Congressmen Hear: The Mail," Public Opinion Quarterly, XX, 1 (Spring, 1952), 16-27. Hawver, Carl. "The Congressman and His Public Opinion Poll." Public Opinion Quarterly, XVIII (Summer, 1954), 123-129.
Huitt, Ralph K. "The Congressional Committee: A Case Study," American Political Science Review, XLVIII (June, 1954], 340-355T
Javits, Jacob K. "Congress Wants to Hear from You," Tlie American Magazine, 153 (June, 1952), 15, 100-103.
Morley, Felix. "The Issues as Voters See Them," Nation's Business, XLIII, 8 (August, 1955), 13-14.
New York Times, January 1, 1955 - December 31, 1955.
"Some Votes Are Made This Way," United States News and World Report, XXXVIII (July T5,' 1955' 70^717 Wyant, Rowena. "Voting Via the Senate Mail Bag," Public Opinion Quarterly, V(194l), 359-382.
Unpublished Material
Dexter, Lewis Anthony. "Congressmen and the People They Listen To." MSS. Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pp. 162. 142
"Congressmen Draw Forth and Emphasize Responses Which in Turn They Represent." MSS. Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pp. 24.
U. S. Congress. Senate. "Rules and Regulations Relating to the Operation of the Senate Recording Studio, (1956)." MSS. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Washington, D. C.
Government Publications
Congressional Record. 82d Cong., 1st sess., vol. 97, pt. 15 (Sept. l8 , 1951-Oct. 20, 1951).
U. S. Congress. Congressional Directory. 84th Cong., 2d sess. (March, l95b).
---- 84th Cong., 1st sess. (March, 1955).
---- 82d Cong., 1st sess. (March, 1951).
House. Committee on Appropriations. Legislative Branch Appropriation Bill, 1957. 84th Cong., 2d sess., H. Rept. 2212 to accompany H. R. 11473. Washington: 1956.
---- Information for Representatives to the Eighty- Fourth Congres'sT Second Session. Cong., 2d sess. by Ralph R. Roberts.
Senate. An Act Making Appropriations for the Legislative Branch for 195?. 84th Cong., 2‘d sess. S. Rept. 2236 to accompany H. R. 11473. Washington: 1956.
U. S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. "Civilian Population of the United States by Type of Residence: April, 1955 and 1950," Current Population Reports. Series P-20, No. b3. Washington: 19554 AUTOBIOGRAPHY
I, Dorothy Hartt Cronheim, was born in East Orange,
Hew Jersey, February 14, 1926. I received my high school
education in the public schools of East Orange and Newark,
New Jersey, and my undergraduate training at the New Jersey
College for Women of Rutgers University, which granted me
the Bachelor of Arts degree in 19^9. From Ohio State
University, I received the Master of Arts degree in 1952.
Between October, 1952*and June, 1953* I served as research assistant on an interdepartmental communication project at
Olio State University under the direction of the late
Professor Dayton E. Heckman and Professors Franklin Knower and Paul Wagner. In 1953* I was made a teaching assistant in the Department of Political Science, where I was special izing in the field of American politics and public opinion.
I held this position until August, 1955* and again between
January and June, 1957. Finally, I served as an assistant to Everett Walters, Dean of the Graduate School, during the summer of 1957* while I was completing the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy.