"Lipinski's impressive analysis of members' communications with constituents yields major insights about partisanship, effects on reelection prospects, and constituent evaluations." --Bruce Oppenheimer, Vanderbilt University "The communication between representatives and their constituents is where election strategy and policy explanations are merged and, until now, we have had only anecdotal evidence. Lipinski's book sheds light on this important part of American political life." --David Brady, Stanford University Congressional Communication challenges the notion that legislators "run against Congress" by routinely denigrating the institution. Using a unique, systematic analysis of the communication from members of Congress to their constituents over a five-year period, Daniel Lipinski challenges this notion, demonstrating key partisan differences in representatives' portrayals of congressional activities. While members of the majority party tend to report that the institution-and, hence, their party-is performing well, members of the minority party are more likely to accuse Congress of doing a poor job. The findings in Congressional Communication offer the first strong empirical evidence from the electoral arena in support of controversial party government theories. Moving beyond previous studies that look only at legislators' messages, Lipinski's research also reveals the effects of these politically strategic claims on voters, whose interpretations don't necessarily bear out the legislators' intended effects. Daniel Lipinski is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Tennessee.

Communication defines political representation. At the core of the representational relationship lies the interaction between principal and agent; the quality of this relationship is predicated upon the accessibility of effective channels of communication between the constituent and representative. Over the past decade, congressional websites have become the primary way constituents communicate with their members and a prominent place for members to communicate with constituents. Yet, as we move toward the third decade of the 21st century, little work has systematically analyzed this forum as a distinct representational space. In this book, Jocelyn Evans and Jessica Hayden offer a fresh, timely, and mixed-methods approach for understanding how the emergence of virtual offices has changed the representational relationship between constituents and members of Congress. Utilizing strong theoretical foundations, a broad historical perspective, elite interviews, and rich original datasets, Evans and Hayden present evidence that virtual offices operate as a distinct representational space, and they demonstrate that their use has resulted in unprecedented and ill-understood changes in representational behavior. Congressional Communication in the Digital Age contributes to the scholarship on representation theory and its application to the contemporary Congress. It is valuable reading for students and researchers interested in American politics, political communication, and legislative politics.

A powerful defense of original jurisprudence.

The Congressional Record is the official record of the proceedings and debates of the United States Congress. It is published daily when Congress is in session. The Congressional Record began publication in 1873. Debates for sessions prior to 1873 are recorded in The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (1789-1824), the Register of Debates in Congress (1824-1837), and the Congressional Globe (1833-1873)

This project evaluates how elected officials communicate with their constituents and whether voters can tell if their interests are being represented. Specifically, I examine whether political communication strategies may inadvertently lead to suboptimal representation. In my first paper, I evaluate whether members of Congress use criticism of Congress as a means to connect with their constituents, using approximately 10,000 campaign advertisements aired throughout the 2000s. In both this observational evidence and through an original experimental study, I show that when members criticize Congress, this message has little impact on attitudes toward Congress in general or the member in particular. However, survey respondents view a member who criticizes Congress as more "like them," potentially introducing a distracting valence issue into elections. In my second paper, I find clear evidence that legislative behavior does not change as a consequence of the rise or fall of military presence in a district. However, members' communication with their constituents does change. Members who gain bases are more likely to emphasize military issues in their emails than they were prior to the redistricting, while those who lose bases reduce their mentions of military-related subjects. While members are not lying about their work in Congress, they are nonetheless painting a misleading picture of the scope of their efforts on behalf of district interests. In my third paper, I show that, despite incentives not to mention other politicians, members of Congress do talk about their peers in DC in about 30 percent of their political communications. I claim this is a means of ideological signalling, where members cite others who share their ideological space. Additionally, I demonstrate through a series of survey experiments that the public makes reasoned judgments about the ideology of a member who talks about another politician. Members thus have the opportunity to shape how constituents view their representative through references to other politicians. In these three papers, I show that members can use sometimes subtle techniques to influence their relationship with the district.

Social media is changing the business of representation in the Senate. If you want to know what your senator is up to, you don't need a newspaper, just your phone. Some senators are social media minimalists while others are digitally long-winded, but each senator has the ability to insert themselves into our daily digital routines and frame their political brand for a public audience. Drawing on a unique dataset of almost 200,000 senator tweets, Tweeting is Leading offers a critical analysis of senators' communication on Twitter, the individual and constituent forces that shape it, and the agendas that result. The public priorities that senators communicate through social media--what Annelise Russell calls their rhetorical agenda--offer a necessary tool for understanding how senators link their carefully crafted public image with potential voters. The rhetorical agenda challenges what we know about representation, removing the institutional and political constraints on congressional communication and giving lawmakers a messaging platform where individual discretion is high, the relative costs are low, and someone is always watching. Tweeting is Leading emphasizes why representation on social media matters for understanding media norms and how lawmakers digitally build a political brand, showing empirically how senators self-constrain their communications to curate different styles of representation that match constituent expectations.