Making a Good Impression: Resource Allocation, Home Styles, and Washington Work

• Date: 01 November 2009
• Published date: 01 November 2009
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3162/036298009789869709
• Author: CRAIG GOODMAN,DAVID C.W. PARKER

493Making a Good Impression

LEGISLATIVE STUDIES QUARTERLY, XXXIV, 4, November 2009 493

DAVID C.W. PARKER

Montana State University

CRAIG GOODMAN

Texas Tech University

Making a Good Impression:

Resource Allocation, Home Styles,

and Washington Work

Members of Congress engage in a variety of representational activities, but

existing research suggests that the effect of these activities on reelection margins is

mixed. Reframing the question, we examined whether or not constituents notice the

home styles of members and members’ efforts to communicate their activities through

the allocation of official resources. Combining new data on members’ office

expenditures with data from the American National Election Studies, we found

evidence that constituents perceive the representational activities of their members

in a meaningful fashion. Franking, office expenditures, and travel back home to the

district provide positive benefits to incumbents, shaping how constituents view these

members and their activities.

The notion that individual members of Congress have particular

home styles is well accepted (Adler, Gent, and Overmeyer 1998; Cain,

Ferejohn, and Fiorina 1987; Fenno 1978; Hill and Hurley 2002; Miler

2007; G. Parker 1986a; Taggart and Durant 1985). It is less clear that

the home style activities in which members engage—such as presen-

tations of self, allocation of office resources, and Washington work—

matter. Much of the existing literature about member use of official

resources focuses on whether or not this use generates greater elec-

toral security for the member, and the evidence is mixed (Cover 1985;

Cover and Brumberg 1982; Fenno 1978; Johannes and McAdams 1981;

McAdams and Johannes 1988; G. Parker 1980b, 1986a; Parker and

Parker 1985; Serra and Cover 1992; Yiannakis 1981). This lack of

consensus raises the obvious question: why would members put forth

so much effort to craft a particular representational face and commu-

nicate it to constituents when the payoff is questionable?

Electoral security and comfortable election margins might be the

long-term goals of a member developing a representational style, but

as Fenno and other researchers have made clear, these are not the

494 David C.W. Parker and Craig Goodman

causally proximate goals. A member’s home style is designed to

generate particular perceptions among constituents, which may then

enhance electoral performance: “The response [members] seek from

others is political support. And the impressions they try to foster are

those that will engender political support” (Fenno 1978, 55). A member

seeking to build a home style reputation for constituency service and

casework, in particular, hopes to alter a voter’s electoral calculus by

de-emphasizing policy stances in favor of experience, seniority, and

trust (Bianco 1991; Cain, Ferejohn, and Fiorina 1987). In other words,

presentations of self, resource-allocation strategies, and Washington

work are purposeful activities designed to affect constituent percep-

tions of the member in a particular way. Members who bring home the

pork hope to achieve recognition for their labors, as do members who

craft reputations for expertise on national defense policy. Much of the

existing research misses this critical point.

We do not know if the activities of members of Congress yield

particular constituent impressions, because studies often rely on

incumbent vote share as a proxy. Focusing instead on the specific

relationship between incumbent activities and the perceptions of

constituents may help us to explain a disconnect in a congressional

literature that emphasizes both the representative routines of members

that constituents seem to expect and the empirical findings that suggest

members of Congress will be better off if they “spend less money, go

home less often, abolish their district offices, fire their staffs, and cut

down on constituency service activities” (Fiorina 1981b, 546).1

We utilized direct measures of how constituents perceive their

members, allowing us to administer a more-appropriate test of the

proposition that the representational activities members engage in affect

the levels of political support members receive from constituents. Using

data from the American National Election Studies (ANES), along with

additional information regarding how members choose to allocate their

official resources, we determined that the decisions of members to

send franked mail or build robust district operations translate into

favorable constituent impressions. Home styles are not empty repre-

sentational activities; they communicate important information to con-

stituents, which constituents interpret much as members would hope.

Building Relationships with Constituents

Richard Fenno (1978) has argued that constituencies in a

member’s district are central to reelection. From these constituencies,

a member assembles support by allocating personal and staff resources,

495Making a Good Impression

presenting a “self” to others, and explaining Washington activities.

The allocation of personal and staff resources generally involves

decisions about how frequently the member should travel home, how

to deploy congressional staffers, and how much mail to send to

constituents by utilizing the frank. “Presentation of self” comprises

the interactions that a member has with constituents in various settings.

The final component of home style, explaining Washington activity,

extends beyond communicating roll-call votes to guiding a broader

discussion of how the member’s work benefits the district. Fenno terms

these activities collectively the member’s “home style,” and a home

style is designed to build constituent trust.2

Fenno suggested that members can influence their electoral fates

through their official actions. “Most incumbents,” writes Glenn Parker

(1986a, 35), “want their constituents to see patterns in their home-

style activities that reinforce the images they are constantly ‘polishing’

and promulgating.” More specifically, a member can develop a personal

vote, which Cain, Ferejohn, and Fiorina (1987, 9) have described “as

a candidate’s electoral support attributed to . . . personal qualities,

qualifications, activities, and record.” Members of Congress choose

particular activities—visiting the district, highlighting legislative

accomplishments, or bringing federal dollars to the district—in an

attempt to “control the images that constituents have of them” (47,

emphasis added). These member efforts are rewarded: the official

activities of members increase the probability that constituents can

recall or recognize the name of their incumbent member of Congress,

report personal contacts with their member, give a positive evaluation

of their member, and offer an evaluation of their member’s district

service (166). Other researchers have also found evidence that the

personal vote brings electoral benefits (Alford and Brady 1993; Herrera

and Yawn 1999).

The allocation of official resources is one component of home

style and one tool a member of Congress may use to build a personal

vote. Fenno hypothesized that members who successfully utilize their

office resources should enjoy long careers, but his empirical investi-

gation did not uncover evidence of a clear relationship between trips

home, staff expenditures, and electoral security.3 According to Johannes

(1983), that this proof is elusive is not surprising: demand-side factors,

such as constituencies, tradition, and expectations, render casework

idiosyncratic, even if congressional newcomers take a more-aggressive

casework approach. More casework, more trips home, and more

mailings do not affect how constituents vote (McAdams and Johannes

1988). Other scholars have, however, found a clear relationship between