IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/buspol/v15y2013i3p401-433n1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Keeping score on congress: explaining variations in interest group ratings of US senators

Author

Listed:
  • Chand Daniel E.

    (New Mexico State University – Government, Las Cruces, NM, USA)

  • Schreckhise William D.

    (Department of Political Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA)

Abstract

We adopt a novel use for an old type of data – interest group scorecards – to explore the impact business organizations have on the political process. By aggregating congressional scorecards, we can develop a sense of how satisfied groups are with the US Congress as a whole. To do this, we generate interest group-level ratings of the US Senate derived from individual-level ratings of each senator. We find business groups tend to give higher aggregated scores relative to other types of groups, suggesting business organizations more often get what they want form Congress, which in turn, illuminates the importance of these groups in the political process. We also find that well-funded “niche” organizations tend to show higher levels of satisfaction with senators than larger groups with broad public missions.

Suggested Citation

  • Chand Daniel E. & Schreckhise William D., 2013. "Keeping score on congress: explaining variations in interest group ratings of US senators," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 15(3), pages 401-433, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:buspol:v:15:y:2013:i:3:p:401-433:n:1
    DOI: 10.1515/bap-2012-0005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/bap-2012-0005
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/bap-2012-0005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:buspol:v:15:y:2013:i:3:p:401-433:n:1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.