I'm doing a quick entry about party Influence over party members
First off, what is it? People were buzzing a few days back about the Rockefeller quote, as seen in this diary. I figured a response is in order, and I like to hear myself talk...
Parties have influence over their members. Period. This influence is felt in a variety of ways depending on the personality of the leadership and whether or not the party in question is in the majority. Parties are the focus of the efforts of their members, where focus means the mathematical focus, or focal point. In return for individuals' efforts being magnified by the party apparatus, individuals agree to sign away some of their freedoms of decision-making to the party. Breaking this contract has varying consequences...
Let's look at the Snowe/Republican leadership match up. What powers does the minority party have and how does the current leadership look to apply it. McConnell is generally considered a low visibility, right-of-center Republican (center being defined as the center of the party, not of the full ideological spectrum) with a DW-NOMINATE score of 0.500 for the 110th Congress and a strict average of 0.401 during his time in Congress (elected into the 99th Congress). Unlike Reid, McConnell isn't known for any particular legislative tricks, like Reid was with "filling the branches" of the amendment tree.
Minority Leadership powers:
However, leadership has a few major powers, almost all based on tradition. Traditionally, the Majority and Minority leaders come to an agreement about the Calendar. Therefore, a Member who upsets the leadership can see his or her Resolutions honoring constituents or renaming Post Offices continually not on the Calendar. A minor thing, to be sure, but the sort of constituent services that made D'Amato such a popular Senator despite being a Republican.
Additionally, Leaders are given right of recognition that they use on behalf of party members. They can be used to 'beat from behind' requests for quorum calls or directions to send back to committee (the kill switch for bills). Withholding this power is an irritant, but the entire Senate loses due to time wasting. On the other hand, Snowe would know that she has few allies to fight for her bills, so would probably be effectively gagged in terms of lead sponsoring legislation. She'd still be able to contribute to others' legislation but be unable to claim credit, which as Liddy Dole found out and Richard Burr might soon, is a key factor in proving that 'you're doing something down in DC.'
Finally, unlike the House, Senators have nearly unlimited time to speak, aside from when debate is limited by unanimous consent agreements. Leadership could do little to effect this, but she certainly wouldn't be given prime time standing to speak about a bill.
Committees as a Senator:
Snowe is the second-highest ranking Republican Senator on the CST (Commerce, Science, and Transportation) Committee. The ranking member is the soon-to-depart KBH, and if Snowe wants to be the ranking member with the lure of the gavel if the Republicans ever take control of the Senate in the future, she needs to keep the leadership happy, along with the rank-and-file caucus membership, since Republicans have non-negligible confirmation votes for Committee leadership. The gavel is a powerful 'carrot,' and Democrats have little to balance against that unless we successfully can lure her over with promises of maintained seniority. CST is a good fit for the rare New England Republican, so she will probably want to stick with that.
Committee juggling is truly 11-th dimensional chess, and it was one of the expertises that made LBJ such a legislative genius. He could plot several moves ahead and predict which senators would take or ignore available slots in turn. As we saw with the recent passing of Senator Kennedy, there was significant shuffling, with scenarios branching out depending on whether Dodd went to HELP or stayed at Finance; Harkin staying at Agri or moving to HELP if Dodd passed; who would take the slot that would then open up; who would take that slot; so on... Republicans keep a more fluid Committee structure than the Dems, who rely much more on the holy god of Seniority and Waiting Your Turn. The promise of Committee leadership or picks of committees is another strong 'carrot,' and this has an associated 'stick.'
Similar to the fight over Lieberman's gavel, Committee leadership must be confirmed by the caucus for Republicans. Leadership matters significantly, especially with such a strong right-flank within their caucus. Breaking ranks, especially when the right now goes berserk at the drop of a pin, is a risky strategy. Snowe risks ending up on the Committee for DC Oversight, a traditional Congressional dumping ground, or being shuffled around as a junior member of assorted committees. She risks losing her ranking membership of the CST Committee's subcommittee on Oceans, Atmospheres, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, which I imagine is a pretty useful post for a Senator from the land of 'Maine lobsters.' She certainly risks getting kicked off the Finance Committee.
Patronage. I can has job:
The Senator's position comes with 'first dibs' on many positions, Executive and otherwise, within his or her home state. I'm most familiar with the period described in 'Master of the Senate,' by Robert Caro, but I imagine it's similar today. United States Attorneys generally aren't nominated without support (or at least lack of opposition) from the state's Senators. This is less effective when the President has incentive to 'play nice,' but the leadership of the Opposition can refuse to support those proposed by Snowe and Collins, especially when nominated by President Obama.
Use of this carrot affects the Senator's popularity within the state. Everyone connected with the person receiving the job is almost always duly appreciative of the work done by the Senator or representative in securing the job.
Anyway, that's about it for this, but there's quite a lot of 'soft power' available to crush the hopes and dreams of overly independent Senators, even beyond those things that comes to a formal vote. Hope this is useful. I'll think about Reid's leadership and some historical examples, but no promises /grin Also, Byrd's volume two on the History of the Senate is an amazing read on the subject of Senate powers.
Cross-posted at Congress Matters