2007 Conference Program - Midwest Political Science Association

35-1 NETWORK ANALYSIS
Room Montrose 2, 7 th Floor, Thur at 8:00 am
Chair James Honaker, University of California, Los Angeles
Paper Agreement Beyond Polarization: Spectral Analysis of
Congress
Matthew C. Harding, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology/Harvard University
Overview: I challenge the perceived unidimensionality of
congressional voting behavior and develop an econometric
procedure for estimating bi-partisan agreements based on the
study of the random networks.
Paper Co-Sponsorship Networks of Minority-Supported Legislation
in the House
David Epstein, Columbia University
Sharyn O'Halloran, Columbia University
James Fowler, University of California, San Diego
Overview: We measure substantive representation of minority
interests via cosponsorship networks.
Paper Challenges in Policy Network Measurement: A Comparison of
Three Approaches
Adam D. Henry, University of California, Davis
Mike McCoy, University of California, Davis
Overview: Three methods of policy network measurement are
compared and evaluated, yielding insight into how to best measure
and describe networks in policy subsystems.
Disc. Bradford S. Jones, University of California, Davis
37-8 INTEREST GROUP VOICES IN THE POLICY
MAKING PROCESS
Room LaSalle 2, 7 th Floor, Thur at 8:00 am
Chair Suzanne M. Robbins, George Mason University
Paper Mobil Oil’s Advertorial Campaigns: Outlets, Audiences and
Messages
Clyde Brown, Miami University, Oxford
Overview: Mobil Oil’s advertorials in TIME magazine, the
American Journalism Review and the Columbia Journalism
Review, and the “op-ed” and regular pages of the New York
Times from 1985 to 2000 are analyzed in terms of audiences
targeted and message content.
Paper Organized Interests and Amicus Briefs: Who Files? Who
Fights Whom? Who Wins?
Kay L. Schlozman, Boston College
Traci Burch, Harvard University
Philip Jones, Harvard University
Sidney Verba, Harvard University
Henry E. Brady, University of California, Berkeley
Overview: Using data from all Supreme Court amicus briefs filed
in 2000-2, we analyze the kinds of interests (e.g., business, labor,
governments) that sign briefs, discern patterns of alliance and
opposition, and assess the probabilities of victory and defeat.
Paper Interest Group Informational Lobbying: Policy vs. Political
Information
Bryan S. McQuide, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Overview: This paper seeks to evaluate the information theory of
interest group influence by examining new technology and
existing groups’ uses of political and policy information in
Congressional hearings over the 1985-2004 period.
Paper The Influence of Interest Groups on Policy-Making in
Congress
Nina Therese Kasniunas, Loyola University, Chicago
Overview: A preferred activity of organized interests is testifying
at congressional hearings. This paper will examine the question of
whether that testimony influences the “markup” of legislation at
the House (sub)committee level.
Paper Does Money Buy Power? Interest Group Resources and
Policy Outcomes
Beth L. Leech, Rutgers University
Frank R. Baumgartner, Pennsylvania State University
Jeffrey M. Berry, Tufts University
Marie Hojnacki, Pennsylvania State University
David C. Kimball, University of Missouri, St. Louis
Overview: A study of 98 U.S. policy issues suggests that having
many resources does not guarantee political outcomes. In most
cases both sides were well funded. Politics created strange
bedfellows, with resource-poor groups joining better-funded
groups.
Disc. Scott R. Furlong, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay
38-1 PRESIDENTIAL DECISION MAKING
Room LaSalle 3, 7 th Floor, Thur at 8:00 am
Chair Bruce F. Nesmith, Coe College
Paper PD 59: What MAD Pursuit
Betty Glad, University of South Carolina
Overview: This paper examines Carter's adoption of Presidential
Directive 59, a document that laid the foundation for Reagan's
expansion of U.S. military capabilities and shows how a motivated
tactician could squeeze out the Secretary of State in the final
decision.
Paper The Men Who Held The Offices: A Systematic Examination of
the Factors In Presidential Decision Making
Geralyn M. Miller, Indiana University Purdue University, Fort
Wayne
Anna Marie Schuh, Roosevelt University
Overview: Analysis of the factors that contribute to presidential
decision making.
Paper The Impact of Emotional Intelligence on Presidential Success
Eric J. Stokan, Wayne State University
Overview: This paper partly unravels the complexities of
measuring presidential success by using emotional intelligence to
reconcile differences between Neustadt’s persuasion thesis and
Skowronek’s political time model.
Paper Analyzing if the U.S. Should Have Attacked Iraq: Decision
Theory Primer
Ernest Y. Wong, United States Military Academy
Overview: Controversy still surrounds the decision to invade Iraq.
However, it has been hard for war critics to sway those who argue
an attack was the best choice at the time. We apply decision
theory to this debate in order to gain more objectivity.
Disc. Peter Schultz, Assumption College
39-14 POLICY PREFERENCES AND POLICY MAKING
Room Suite 9-142, 9 th Floor, Thur at 8:00 am
Chair E. Scott Adler, University of Colorado
Paper Constituency Opinion and Senator Roll Call Voting: The Case
of Immigration Policy, 2006
Jeffrey E. Cohen, Fordham University
Richard Fleisher, Fordham University
Overview: We analyze the impact of constituency opinion on
Senate immigration roll call votes during 2006, asking whether
senators are more responsive to constituents specific attitudes
towards immmigration or their more general orientations (e. g.,
ideology).
Paper Transformations in Congress and U.S. Higher Education
Policy, 1973-2006
Suzanne Mettler, Syracuse University
Overview: This paper examines shifts in Congressional leadership,
party dominance, and interest group representation in order to
explain why policymakers are no longer acting—as they did in the
mid-20th century-- to expand access to higher education.
Paper V.O. Key’s Veterans Revisited: Assessing the Electoral
Connection in the Interwar Era
David Karol, University of California, Berkeley
Overview: In assessing the electoral consequences of MCs’ votes
on WWI Veterans’ bonus I test three hypotheses that Key (1943)
ignored: A. MCs’ votes on the bonus affected their vote shares. B.
MCs with safer seats were more apt to oppose the bonus.
Page | 75