Legislating Crime Policy from the White House: Presidential Success with Congress in the Passage of Federal Crime Control Policy

Abstract

Previous research has found that presidents, in general, have the power to influence congress in the passage of federal crime control policy. What has not been fully explored is whether presidential supported bills are more likely to influence congress to pass federal crime control bills. Therefore, this study draws upon the theory that presidents influence congress to test the hypothesis that president supported legislation on crime will achieve greater success in congress than nonsupported bills. Analysis of legislative, presidential and congressional data from 1946 through 1996 suggests support for the theory that presidential supported bills are 2.8 times more likely (or 185% more likely) to become law.

“Shaping history” or “Riding the wave”?: President Bush's influence on the public opinion of terrorism, homeland security, & crime

“…This substantial increase in the public's support of the president that occurs in response to certain events is known as the "rally effect" (Hetherington & Nelson, 2003). However, a long term event such as the Iran-hostage situation and the failed rescue attempt during Carter's Administration, can actually lead to a decrease in presidential support (Oliver & Marion, 2007).…”

Congress, Crime, and Budgetary Responsiveness

“…to pass crime control legislation (Oliver, 2003b;Oliver & Barlow, 2005;Oliver & Marion, 2006). Congress has, in turn, held congressional committee hearings on crime, listened to lobbyists representing criminal justice interests, and individual Senators and Representatives have held town-hall meetings addressing the problems of crime (Oliver, 2003b;Oliver & Barlow, 2005;Oliver & Marion, 2007;Stolz, 1999Stolz, , 2002. These tools have given Congress the necessary influence and political capital to pass federal crime control legislation.…”

“…Past research has found that Congress engages in symbolic politics when it comes to their crime agenda (Stolz, 1985), capital punishment (Stolz, 1983), the war on drugs (Stolz, 1992), and domestic violence (Stolz, 1999). Further research has also suggested that Congress' engagement in symbolic politics may come as a result of presidents engaging in it as well, creating an influence on Congress, both directly and indirectly, through public opinion (Oliver & Barlow, 2005;Oliver & Marion, 2007).…”

“Budgets, Institutions, and Change: Criminal Justice Policy in America” Revisited

“…More importantly, as presidents since the 1960s have consistently focused on crime issues (Marion, 1992(Marion, , 1994a(Marion, , 1994b, they have been more effective in influencing the public's opinion of crime and the need for legislation (Oliver, 1998(Oliver, , 2002(Oliver, , 2003a. This, in turn, gives presidents more leverage to urge Congress to pass crime control legislation (Oliver, 2003b;Oliver & Barlow, 2005;Oliver & Marion, 2005).…”