Party Messaging in the U.S. House of Representatives

• Author: Tyler Hughes,Gregory Koger
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211029712
• Published date: 01 September 2022
• Date: 01 September 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211029712

Political Research Quarterly

© 2021 University of Utah

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10659129211029712

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

On July 28, 2009, the Speaker of the House opened a

period of one-minute speeches without the customary

limit on the number of speeches each party could give.

For hours, 146 members of both parties took turns hailing

or criticizing the health care legislation that would even-

tually become the Patient Protection and Affordable Care

Act (ACA) as spectators cheered from a raucous House

gallery. Members chose whether to participate in this

debate, but each party sought to rally members to make

its best case because the stakes were extraordinary: fram-

ing the public debate over health care reform could affect

whether any bill became law and whether Democrats felt

confident enough to make bold reforms.

This episode was a single clash in an ongoing messag-

ing war in the U.S. House of Representatives. Both politi-

cal parties seek to promote their collective reputation, or

“brand,” to win elections. This goal influences both the

legislative agenda and the legislators’ efforts to commu-

nicate with the media and the broader public. Recent

research finds Congressional parties devote increasing

resources to public relations in the hope of generating a

“wave” for the next election (Green 2015; Lee 2016).

This article takes the next step and explains the strategy

of messaging: when do parties go on message, and on

which policy issues do parties focus?

We analyze party message strategy using a unique

dataset of 50,195 one-minute speeches delivered on the

floor of the House of Representatives from 1989 to 2016.1

Speechmaking is just one part of the larger party messag-

ing apparatus, which includes press conferences/releases,

media interviews, and other legislative debates on specific

bills (Green 2015; Groeling 2010; Lee 2016; Sellers

2009). One-minute speeches are ideal for analyzing party

messaging, because these speeches provide a consistent

measure of party messaging over this period. While regu-

lar House debate must be germane to the measure or issue

under consideration, members of Congress (MCs) are free

to discuss any topic during the one-minute debate period.

Legislators may use this opportunity to advocate for their

personal policy priorities or speak about non-policy issues.

However, party caucuses often organize multiple speakers

to advance their party’s message by coordinating a series

of speeches on a single, pre-arranged topic (Harris 2005).

These “messaging” efforts are the focus of this article. We

analyze why parties go on message on some days but not

others and which issues they choose to speak about. Based

on prior research, there are several potential explanations

of party message strategy: messaging may be tied to the

legislative agenda, parties may emphasize issues not given

1029712PRQXXX10.1177/10659129211029712Political Research QuarterlyHughes and Koger

research-article2021

1California State University, Northridge, USA

2University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Tyler Hughes, California State University, Northridge, 210 Sierra Hall,

18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 913301-8254, USA.

Email: Tyler.Hughes@csun.edu

Party Messaging in the U.S. House

of Representatives

Tyler Hughes1 and Gregory Koger2

Abstract

Both Congressional parties compete to promote their own reputations while damaging the opposition party’s brand.

This behavior affects both policy-making agendas and the party members’ communications with the media and

constituents. While there has been ample study of partisan influence on legislative agenda-setting and roll call voting

behavior, much less is known about the parties’ efforts to shape the public debate. This paper analyzes two strategic

decisions of parties: the timing of collective efforts to influence the public policy debate and the substantive content

of these “party messaging” events. These dynamics are analyzed using a unique dataset of 50,195 one-minute speeches

delivered on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1989 to 2016. We find a pattern of strategic

matching—both parties are more likely to engage in concurrent messaging efforts, often on the same issue.

Keywords

congress, political parties, legislative speech, agenda setting, machine learning

2022, Vol. 75(3) 829–845

Article

830 Political Research Quarterly 75(3)

attention by the opposition, or each party may attempt to

match the message strategy of the opposition. We find a

pattern of strategic matching: both parties are more likely

to engage in messaging efforts when the opposing party

does so, often on the same issues.

Party Brands and Congressional

Speeches

The contemporary Congress is a forum for partisan com-

petition as much as it is a lawmaking organization.

Democrats and Republicans compete to maximize their

brand reputations while damaging their opponent’s repu-

tation. This competition is manifest in parliamentary

speeches on the House floor, which we leverage to study

the dynamics of partisan messaging.

Party Brands

A growing body of research finds that political parties have

durable reputations or “brands” (Box-Steffensmeier and

Smith 1996, 1998; Campbell et al. 1960; Erikson,

MacKuen, and Stimson 2002). These brands include major

policy positions, legislative accomplishments, well-known

members (such as presidents), and past policy performance

(Egan 2013; Erikson, MacKuen, and Stimson 2002; Green

2015; Groeling 2010; Grynaviski 2010; Lee 2016; Pope

and Woon 2009; Snyder and Ting 2002; Woon and Pope

2008). Parties also have issue-specific advantages (Pope

and Woon 2009), and the parties emphasize their relative

strengths when attempting to set legislative agendas (Cox

and McCubbins 1993, 2005; Egan 2013; Lee 2009) or

choose campaign themes (Petrocik 1996). A party has

good reason to care about its relative status: congressional

elections often feature national partisan swings that reward

one party over the other for having a superior reputation

(Cox and McCubbins 1993; Green 2015, 72; see also

Butler and Powell 2014).

Because the electoral stakes are high, congressional par-

ties are deeply involved in framing news coverage and polit-

ical discussion on key issues (Groeling 2010; Lee 2016,

112–41). Party leaders even distribute talking points to their

members to coordinate their public message. Legislators

then decide if they are going to repeat the party message or

not (Groeling 2010; Sellers 2009). These actions help voters

to evaluate parties (Egan 2013; Woon and Pope 2008). The

misuse of congressional rhetoric can even lower citizens’

overall evaluation of Congress (Morris and Eisenstein

2001). In addition, party messaging can help a party to shape

the public framing of policy debates and foster camaraderie

among party members (Green 2015, 72–73).

The next step in research on party messaging is to

understand the messaging choices parties make. How do

parties, in Schattschneider’s (1960) formulation, expand

the scope of conflict on specific issues? Which issues

does each party emphasize, and when? Do parties empha-

size their own issues, discuss issues on the legislative

agenda, or respond to the opposition? These strategic

decisions underlie the public side of Congressional polar-

ization. To answer them, we need a consistent, long-term

dataset of party messaging. For this purpose, we use one-

minute speeches from the U.S. House of Representatives.

One-Minute Speeches

House one-minute speeches take place at the beginning of

each legislative day when the Speaker designates a number

of speeches to be delivered from each side of the aisle—

usually ten or fifteen for each party. These morning-hour

speeches represent rare opportunities for unconstrained

access to the floor. MCs—regardless of seniority—are free

to address the floor on a first come, first served basis until

each side reaches their allotted number of speeches. Speech

topics may range from the intricacies of the federal budget

to honoring a Girl Scouts troop in rural Indiana. House

members understand most voters will not witness these

speeches on C-SPAN (Cable-Satellite Public Affairs

Network) or read the transcript of the Congressional

Record, so speeches are rebroadcast through members’

newsletters, websites, and YouTube channels.

Congressional leaders began using one-minute speeches

to publicize party messages in the 1980s (Evans 2001;

Green 2015, 75–78; Harris 2005). This effort became more

formal and common after Newt Gingrich and Dick

Gephardt ascended to their respective House leadership

roles in the 1980s. Today, the two parties’ communication

teams work to highlight and reinforce the parties’ policy

stances through one-minute speeches. In fact, caucus lead-

ership sends weekly emails asking members to highlight

specific issues in their speeches (Congressional Staff

Interviews L, April 24, 2014).2 According to several staff

members, the parties often engage one another during the

debate period to contest policy frames (Congressional

Staff Interviews I, April 17, 2014).

The House session of November 6, 2007, is an example

of how these messaging efforts can be interactive. On this

day, Republicans gave twenty-seven speeches and

Democrats gave sixteen speeches on a bill providing funds

for the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,

and Veterans Affairs. The overarching message within

those speeches offered contrasting messages: Republicans

argued against the “wasteful” spending bill, and Democrats

expressed the need to fund the nation’s veterans.

One-minute speeches provide a consistent measure of

legislative rhetoric that scholars can use to understand

patterns of Congressional debate.3 Several studies ana-

lyzed which legislators are more likely to make one-min-

ute speeches (Maltzman and Sigelman 1996; Morris