“Information provides power in Congress,” writes Curry. Those in the leadership have “extensive information about the legislation being considered and the political dynamics surrounding that legislation. Rank-and-file members in Congress, in contrast, have limited resources and find it very difficult to become informed about most of the legislation being considered at any time.” So they usually follow the lead of their party and vote in predictable partisan fashion. After all, if they are going to dissent, they’d better have a good reason. “When there is less information available,” writes Curry, “they will have more trouble finding reasons to oppose the legislation.” (Or, if they are in the minority, reasons to support it.)
Between 1998 and 2010, funds to majority leadership offices grew twice as fast (up 50 percent) as funds to personal offices (up 27 percent) and funds to committee offices (up just 22 percent). Moreover, legislation has become more and more complex, and complexity is a key tool of rank-and-file compliance (the longer the bill, the harder it is to read). Like members of the House Freedom Caucus, Curry laments these developments. “In shutting most lawmakers out of the legislative process, stifling their voices, and keeping them in the dark,” he writes, “leaders undermine the quality of legislative deliberations and dyadic representation in the House of Representatives.”
Yet, as Curry notes, the tactics are effective. Restricting access to information helps party leaders to get their priorities passed. And for those in the parties-should-be-strengthened camp, this might be a welcome development. “Advocates of strong, responsible parties should be pleased,” notes Curry. “The leaders of each party can use these tactics to line up their rank and file on votes, establishing contrasts for the next election.”