An analysis of 500 million words explains who controls the policy agenda

Congress’ long year-end to-do list includes addressing the nation's borrowing authority and an annual defense authorization package. These priorities, and others, leave little, if any, room in the December agenda for consideration of election reform bills or the Build Back Better Act.

Policy decisions that prioritize the needs of businesses and the wealthy over average Americans are not unusual, writes Christopher Witko, professor of public policy and political science and associate director of the School of Public Policy in his new co-authored book, “Hijacking the Agenda: Economic Power and Political Influence.” Published by Russell Sage Foundation Press, the book is a multi-university collaborative project between Witko and three co-authors, Peter K. Enns, professor of government at Cornell University and executive director of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, and Nathan J. Kelly and Jana Morgan, both professors of political science at the University of Tennessee.

To explain how issues get on – or are kept off – the national policy agenda and to understand how legislators talk about and promote issues, the authors analyzed case studies, campaign finance data and nearly 500 million words from more than 20 years of floor speeches by members of Congress.

Controlling the governing agenda is the ultimate form of political power, the authors assert. While major social and economic issues such as income inequality, minimum wage and climate change disproportionately affect lower and middle-class Americans, those in power tend to focus on corporate and wealthy interests.

“There had not been a lot of empirical investigation, so we're one of the few studies that actually looks at how that happens,” Witko said. 

The authors argue that the wealthy and businesses exert two kinds of power — “kinetic power,” the ability to mobilize resources toward policy goals, and “structural power,” leverage based on position in the economy.

“Hijacking the Agenda” details how much (or how little) each member of Congress spoke about each issue and explains what that means in the agenda-setting process. By looking at what issues members of Congress discuss and promote, the authors evaluated patterns of influence in the policy process before an issue makes it to the House or Senate floor.

“If a problem is completely ignored, or rarely talked about, the odds that it's going to end up becoming law or being subject to a hearing are basically nonexistent,” Witko said.

The book also explores the relationship between campaign contributions and legislators’ actions. Analyzing how campaign contributions shape what individual members of Congress discuss reveals how contributions influence a member’s likelihood of addressing issues important to the donor. 

“If a member of Congress gets more money from labor unions, for example, they are more likely to talk about wages and income in politics,” Witko said. “If they get more money from business, they are more likely to talk about the deficit and less likely to talk about wages or income inequality.”

The attention imbalance is important because when members of Congress talk about specific issues, their speech is often followed by legislation, he said. 

“It's easier for the powerful interests to shape what happens in Congress at the agenda stage because it's not so constrained by a party, and it's less visible to the public.”

One case study in “Hijacking the Agenda” examines the minimum wage, which was last increased by law in 2009. Witko said that even with Democrats controlling three branches of government, the issue still isn’t a priority on the legislative agenda. 

“A lot of effort has been put into the infrastructure bill, and that's really important. They should get it done,” Witko said. “But if you're putting effort into infrastructure, then you're not putting it into the minimum wage. Even when Democrats aren't in control, businesses and the wealthy still have more power. They're going to get their obscure issues addressed, even over things that the lower- and middle-class care about.”

Witko is hopeful about changes to policies that help ordinary Americans, but he says it’s an unfair fight. 

“The pandemic helped us see the holes in recent social policies and benefits, but those that were enacted during COVID-19 have failed to pass as permanent legislation. Temporary policies are bandages we desperately needed during the pandemic, but good, permanent policy changes don’t happen very frequently.” 

“This is an important book for helping us understand the inner workings of our government and can help us better understand the interests and inequality in the policymaking process,” said Lilliard Richardson, director of the School of Public Policy.

Witko’s previous book, “The New Economic Populism: How States Respond to Economic Inequality” won the State Politics and Policy Section's Virginia Gray best book award in 2018.