Rejoinder: Congressional Informal Groups—Sideshow, or the Changing Nature of Congressional Representation?

Authors

  • Arturo Vega

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.1993.14.0.387-393

Abstract

I am grateful to Thomas Longoria and Susan Hammond for their comments, and for the opportunity to respond to several points raised concerning my article. The essay dealt with several issues, some of which deserve additional explanation, as both Longoria and Hammond point out. Nonetheless, I believe my article and the ensuing commentaries suggest a rethinking of the issue of congressional informal groups in the modern Congress. I shall begin with the three main methodological issues that Hammond and Longoria raise: the overlap between role and activity variables, response bias of survey data, and the use of elite interviews. Next, I address Hammond’s issue of the distinction between legislative service organizations (LSOs) and non-LSOs. Finally, I close with a response to Longoria’s comments on congressional groups testifying before congressional committees with two cases of the Hispanic Caucus and the 1980s immigration reform efforts.

References

Hammond, Susan Webb. 1993. Commentary on 'Congressional Informal Groups as Representative Responsiveness.' American Review of Politics 14: 375-379.

________, Daniel P. Mulhollan, and Arthur G. Stevens, Jr. 1981. The Institutionalization of Interests in Congress: An Organizational Perspective on Informal Groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Political Science Association.

Longoria, Thomas, Jr. 1993. Congressional Caucuses and Congressional Committees: A Commentary on Vega. American Review of Politics 14: 381-386.

Truman, David B. 1971. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Vega, Arturo. 1993. Congressional Informal Groups as Representative Responsiveness. American Review of Politics 14: 355-373.

Downloads

Published

1993-11-01

Issue

Section

Articles