Skip to main content
Log in

Explaining legislators’ positions on outside income limits: Voting on honoraria ceilings in the U.S. Senate, 1981–1983

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines roll-call voting by members of the U.S. Senate on three proposals to limit members’ outside income in the 1980s. I find that several factors influenced legislators’ votes on outside income limits legislation (OILL). First, financial self-interest was an important constraint on members’ willingness to support OILL. Members who earned more honoraria were less likely to vote yes, but this opposition was neutralized when limits were attached to the compensating mechanism of a pay raise. Senators from poorer states were generally more likely to support honoraria limits alone but less likely to support limits linked to a pay raise, suggesting a responsiveness to constituent interests in both cases. Finally, when OILL was linked to a pay raise, electoral considerations became prominent in legislators’ vote decisions, with electorally vulnerable members less likely to vote yes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Almond, G. A. (1950). The American people and foreign policy. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansolabehere, S., Snyder, J. M., & Stewart III, C. (2001). Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 136–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, R. V. (1979). The marginality hypothesis: Electoral insecurity, self-interest and voting behavior. American Politics Quarterly, 7, 498–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beard, C. (1935). An economic interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beard, E., & Horn, S. (1976). Congressional ethics: The view from the house. Washington: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. M. (1999). The new liberalism: The rising power of citizen groups. Washington: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianco, W. (1994). Trust: Representatives and constituents. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianco, W., Spence, D. B., & Wilkerson, J. D. (1996). The electoral connection in the early Congress: The case of the compensation Act of 1816. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 145–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishin, B. G. (2000). Constituency influence in Congress: Does subconstituency matter? Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25, 389–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogart, W. T., & Vandoren, P. M. (1993). Do legislators vote their constituents’ wallets (and how would we know if they did?). Southern Economic Journal, 60, 357–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury, V. (1996). Government ethics reform: The Massachusetts financial disclosure law. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Boston College.

  • Clark, J. A. (1996). Congressional salaries and the politics of unpopular votes. American Politics Quarterly, 24, 150–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chappell, H. (1981). Conflict of interest and congressional voting: A note. Public Choice, 37, 331–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chappell, H. (1982). Campaign contributions and congressional voting: Simultaneous probit/tobit models. Public Choice, 36, 301–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, D., & Munger, M. (1995). Legislative voting and the economic theory of politics. Southern Economic Journal, 61, 861–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Common Cause (1990). Common Cause conflict of interest legislation in the States. Washington: Common Cause

  • Congressional ethics: History, facts and controversy (1992). Washington: Congressional Quarterly Books

  • Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couch, J. F., Atkinson, K. E., & Shughart II, W. F. (1992). Ethics laws and the outside earnings of politicians: The case of Alabama’s ‘legislator-educators’. Public Choice, 73, 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, G. W. (1984). Expected utility model of electoral competition. Quality and Quantity, 18, 337–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougan, W. R., & Munger, M. C. (1989). The rationality of ideology. Journal of Law and Economics, 32, 119–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M. P. (1994). Divided government in the American States: A byproduct of legislative professionalism? American Political Science Review, 88, 304–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garment, S. (1991). Scandal: The crisis of mistrust in American politics. New York: Times Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, B., & Shefter, M. (2002). Politics by other means: The declining importance of elections in America. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, M. R., Holp, T. J., & Ludwig, K. M. (1996). Understanding state legislative ethics reform: The importance of political and institutional culture. In J. S. Bowman (Ed.), Public integrity annual. Lexington: Council of State Governments.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, I. (2006). Degrees of distinction: Comparison of federal and provincial ethics regimes. Working Paper.

  • Griffin, J. (2006). Electoral competition and democratic responsiveness: A defense of the marginality hypothesis. Journal of Politics, 68, 911–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, G. (2004). Revisiting the link between electoral competition and policy extremism in the U.S. Congress. American Politics Research, 32, 495–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. L. Van Houweling, R. P. (1995). Avarice and ambition in Congress: Representatives’ decisions to run from the U.S. House. American Political Science Review, 89, 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henshaw, S. K., & Martire, G. (1982). Morality and legality. Family Planning Perspectives, 14, 53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hibbing, J. R. (1982). Voluntary retirements from the House in the 20th century. Journal of Politics, 44, 1020–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hibbing, J. R. (1983). Washington on 75 dollars a day: Members of Congress voting on their own tax break. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 8, 219–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, R. E. (2003). Sources of competition in state legislative primary elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 28, 103–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalt, J. P., & Zupan, M. Z. (1984). Capture and ideology in the economic theory of politics. American Economic Review, June, 279–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalt, J. P., & Zupan, M. Z. (1990). The apparent ideological behavior of legislators: Testing of principal-agent slack in political institutions. Journal of Law and Economics, 33, 103–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, A. (1981). The politics of congressional ethics. In J. Cooper, & G.C. Mackenzie (Eds.), The House at work. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kau, J. B., & Rubin, P. H. (1982). Congressmen, constituents, and contributors. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A. (1988). Attitude importance and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 240–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuklinski, J. (1978). Electoral margins, district homogeneity, and the responsiveness of legislators. In S. Greer, R. Hedlund, & J. Gibson (Eds.), Accountability in urban society. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. S., & McCormick, R. L. (1983). Progressivism. Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, T. (1994). The art of legislative politics. Washington: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lott, J. R. (1987). Political cheating. Public Choice, 52, 169–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lott, J. R. (1990). Attendance rates, political shirking, and the effect of post-elective office employment. Economic Inquiry, 28, 133–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, G. C. (2002). Scandal proof: Do ethics laws make government more ethical? Washington: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, W. G. (2001). Public attitudes on campaign finance. In G. C. Lubenow (Ed.), A User’s Guide to Campaign Finance Reform. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • McArthur, J. R., & Marks, S. V. (1988). Constituent interest versus legislator ideology: The role of political opportunity cost. Economic Inquiry, 26, 461–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann, M. (1986). Taking reform seriously: Perspectives on public interest liberalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFarland, A. S. (1984). Common cause: Lobbying in the public interest. New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, R., & Ohsfeldt, R. (1989). Public choice analysis and the ratification of the constitution. In B. Grofman & D. Wittman (Eds.), The federalist papers and the new institutionalism. Agathon Press

  • McRae, D. (1952). The relation between roll call votes and constituencies in the Massachusetts House of representatives. American Political Science Review, 46, 1046–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1963). Constituency influence in congress. American Political Science Review, 57, 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moncrief, G. F., Squire, P., & Jewell, M. E. (2001). Who runs for the legislature? Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moncrief, G. F., Niemi, R. G., & Powell, L. W. (2004). Time, term limits, and turnover: Trends in membership stability in U.S. state legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29, 357–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, D., & Silberberg, III (1987). Ideology and legislator shirking. Economic Inquiry, 25, 15–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G. R. (1992). The distribution of honoraria income in the United States Congress: Who gets rents in Congress and why? Public Choice, 73, 167–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peltzman, S. (1984). Constituent interest and congressional voting. Journal of Law and Economics, 27, 181–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1991). Patterns of congressional voting. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 228–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, L. E., & Munger, M. C. (1990). Shirking, representation, and congressional behavior: Voting on the 1983 amendments to the social security act. Public Choice, 67, 11–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenson, B. A. (2003). Legislative voting on ethics reform in two states: The influence of economic self-interest, ideology and institutional power. Public Integrity, 5, 205–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenson, B. A. (2005). The shadowlands of conduct: Ethics and state politics. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenson, B. A. (2006, forthcoming). The impact of ethics laws on legislative recruitment and the occupational composition of state legislatures. Political Research Quarterly.

  • Rosenthal, A. (1996). Drawing the line: Legislative ethics in the States. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, A. (1974). Turnover in state legislatures. American Journal of Political Science, 18, 609–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silberman, J. I., & Durden, G. C. (1976). Determining legislative preferences on the minimum wages: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 84, 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squire, P. (1988). Career opportunities and membership stability in legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 13, 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelen, D. P. (1976). Robert M. LaFollette and the insurgent spirit. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theriault, S. M. (2005). The power of the people: Congressional competition, public attention, and voter retribution. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D. F. (1995). Ethics in Congress. Washington: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolchin, S. J., & Tolchin, M. (2001). Glass houses: Congressional ethics and the politics of venom. Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanbeek, J. (1991). Does the decision to retire increase the amount of political shirking? Public Finance Quarterly, 19, 444–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiebe, R. (1967). The search for order, 1877–1920. New York: Hill and Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. L. (1996). Controlling ethical practices through laws and rules: Evaluating the Florida commission on ethics. In J. S. Bowman (Ed.), Public integrity annual. Lexington: Council of State Governments.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zupan, M. (1990). The last-period problem in politics: Do congressional representatives not subject to a reelection constraint alter their voting behavior? Public Choice, 65, 167–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beth A. Rosenson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rosenson, B.A. Explaining legislators’ positions on outside income limits: Voting on honoraria ceilings in the U.S. Senate, 1981–1983. Public Choice 133, 111–128 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-007-9181-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-007-9181-x

Keywords

Navigation