Hostname: page-component-66644f4456-5jvrx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-12T18:57:40.265Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Alphabet Mafia: Effectiveness of LGBTQ+ Interest Groups in Congress

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2025

Robert Anstett Open the ORCID record for Robert Anstett [Opens in a new window]
Robert Anstett*
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, United States
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the effectiveness of LGBTQ groups in Congress by looking at voting in favor of bills concerning queer rights. I find that the effect of donations is present in the early period of queer bills before Congress but disappears in bills post-2018. Instead, party is the dominant explanation for votes on bills. This has implications for the strategies that should be employed by LGBTQ+ interests at the national level and implications for how political science should examine the interactions between interest groups and new venues of change.

Type
Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , First View , pp. 1 - 5
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anstett, Robert. 2024. “Replication Data for The Alphabet Mafia: Effectiveness of LGBTQ+Interest Groups in Congress.” PS: Political Science & Politics. DOI: 10.7910/DVN/3XQ5SW.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishin, Benjamin, Freebourn, Justin, and Tetan, Paul. 2021. “The Power of Equality? Polarization and Collective Misrepresentation on Gay Rights in Congress, 1989-2019.” Political Research Quarterly 74 (4): 1009–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishin, Benjamin G., and Smith, Charles Anthony. 2013. “When Do Legislators Defy Popular Sovereignty? Testing Theories of Minority Representation Using DOMA.” Political Research Quarterly 66:794–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunell, Thomas. L. 2005. “The Relationship between Political Parties and Interest Groups: Explaining Patterns of PAC Contributions to Candidates for Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 58 (4): 681–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, and Gibson, Nathan. 2019. “Does Money Buy Congressional Love? Individual Donors and Legislative Voting.” Congress & the Presidency 46 (1): 1–27. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casey, John. 2019. “How Outing a Republican 25 Years Ago Changed Politics Forever.” Advocate, November 14. https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2019/11/14/Google Scholar
Cigler, Allan J., Loomis, Burdett A., and Nownes, Anthony J., eds. 2015. Interest Group Politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Paul M. 2013. “Interest Groups in the Judicial Arena.” In Grossmann, Matt, New Directions in Interest Group Politics, 235–51. Routledge.Google Scholar
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. 215 (2022).Google Scholar
Engel, Stephen M. 2007. “Organizational Identity as a Constraint on Strategic Action: A Comparative Analysis of Gay and Lesbian Interest Groups.” Studies in American Political Development 21 (1): 66–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleisher, Richard. 1993. “PAC Contributions and Congressional Voting on National Defense.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 18: 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Stacy B. 2001. “All Votes Are Not Created Equal: Campaign Contributions and Critical Votes.” The Journal of Politics 63 (1): 249–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald P. 2001. “Policy Diffusion as a Geographical Expansion of the Scope of Political Conflict: Same-Sex Marriage Bans in the 1990s.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly 1 (1): 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider‐Markel, Donald P., and Meier, Kenneth. 2003. “Legislative Victory, Electoral Uncertainty: Explaining Outcomes in the Battles over Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights.” Review of Policy Research 20 (4): 671–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Richard L., and Wayman, Frank W.. 1990. “Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees.” American Political Science Review 84 (3): 797–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Jeffrey. 2022. “LGBT Identification in U.S. Ticks Up to 7.1%.” Gallup, February 2022. https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspxGoogle Scholar
Karol, David. 2012. “How Does Party Position Change Happen? The Case of Gay Rights in the US Congress.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, August 2012.Google Scholar
Lazarus, Jeffrey. 2013. “Issue Salience and Bill Introduction in the House and Senate.” Congress & the Presidency 40 (3): 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nownes, Anthony J. 2010. “Density Dependent Dynamics in the Population of Transgender Interest Groups in the United States, 1964–2005.” Social Science Quarterly 91 (3): 689–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S 644 (2015).Google Scholar
Schlozman, Kay L., Verba, Sidney, and Brady, Henry E.. 2012. The Unheavenly Chorus. In The Unheavenly Chorus. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Paul. 2018. “Justice Kennedy: The Linchpin of the Transformation of Civil Rights for the LGBTQ Community.” SCOTUSblog. June 28. https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/justice-kennedy-the-linchpin-of-the-transformation.Google Scholar
Snell, Paul. 2017. “Equality in the House: The Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus and the Substantive Representation of the LGBTQ Community.” In LGBTQ Politics: A Critical Reader, ed. Brettschneider, Marla, Burgess, Susan, and Keating, Cricket. New York: NYU Press, 309–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Jami K., Lewis, Daniel C., and Haider-Markel, Donald P.. 2020. “LGBTQ Policy and Fragmented Federalism in the US.” State and Local Government Review 52 (4): 255–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Anstett supplementary material

Anstett supplementary material
Download Anstett supplementary material(File)
File 24.5 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Anstett Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/3XQ5SW
Link