Textual predictors of bill survival in congressional committees

ABSTRACT

A U. S. Congressional bill is a textual artifact that must pass through a series of hurdles to become a law. In this paper, we focus on one of the most precarious and least understood stages in a bill's life: its consideration, behind closed doors, by a Congressional committee. We construct predictive models of whether a bill will survive committee, starting with a strong, novel baseline that uses features of the bill's sponsor and the committee it is referred to. We augment the model with information from the contents of bills, comparing different hypotheses about how a committee decides a bill's fate. These models give significant reductions in prediction error and highlight the importance of bill substance in explanations of policy-making and agenda-setting.

References

1. E. Scott Adler and John Wilkerson. 2005. The scope and urgency of legislation: Reconsidering bill success in the house of representatives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.
2. E. Scott Adler and John Wilkerson. 2012. Congress and the Politics of Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, London.
3. Beata Beigman Klebanov, Daniel Diermeier, and Eyal Beigman. 2008. Lexical cohesion analysis of political speech. Political Analysis, 16(4):447--463.
4. David Blei, Andrew Ng, and Michael Jordan. 2003. Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3:993--1022.
5. Joshua Clinton, Simon Jackman, and Doug Rivers. 2004. The statistical analysis of roll-call data. American Political Science Review, 98(2):355--370.
6. Pradipto Das, Rohini Srihari, and Smruthi Mukund. 2009. Discovering voter preferences in blogs using mixtures of topic models. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Analytics for Noisy Unstructured Text Data.
7. Sean Gerrish and David Blei. 2011. Predicting legislative roll calls from text. In Proc. of ICML.
8. Justin Grimmer and Brandon Stewart. 2012. Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political documents. http://www.stanford.edu/~jgrimmer/tad2.pdf.
9. Justin Grimmer. 2010. A Bayesian hierarchical topic model for political texts: Measuring expressed agendas in Senate press releases. Political Analysis, 18(1):1--35.
10. Simon Jackman. 2001. Multidimensional analysis of roll call data via Bayesian simulation: Identification, estimation, inference, and model checking. Political Analysis, 9(3):227--241.
11. Shimon Kogan, Dimitry Levin, Bryan R. Routledge, Jacob S. Sagi, and Noah A. Smith. 2009. Predicting risk from financial reports with regression. In Proc. of NAACL.
12. Michael Laver, Kenneth Benoit, and John Garry. 2003. Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review, 97(2):311--331.
13. Kevin Lerman, Ari Gilder, Mark Dredze, and Fernando Pereira. 2008. Reading the markets: Forecasting public opinion of political candidates by news analysis. In Proc. of COLING.
14. Nolan McCarty, Howard Rosenthal, and Keith T. Poole. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. MIT Press.
15. Burt Monroe, Michael Colaresi, and Kevin M. Quinn. 2008. Fightin' words: Lexical feature selection and evaluation for identifying the content of political conflict. Political Analysis, 16(4):372--403.
16. Brendan O'Connor, Ramnath Balasubramanyan, Bryan R. Routledge, and Noah A. Smith. 2010. From tweets to polls: Linking text sentiment to public opinion time series. In Proc. of ICWSM.
17. Brendan O'Connor, David Bamman, and Noah A. Smith. 2011. Computational text analysis for social science: Model complexity and assumptions. In Proc. of the NIPS Workshop on Comptuational Social Science and the Wisdom of Crowds.
18. Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2004. A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In Proc. of ACL.
19. Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal. 1985. A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29(2):357--384.
20. Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal. 1991. Patterns of congressional voting. American Journal of Political Science, 35(1):228--278.
21. Kevin M. Quinn, Burt L. Monroe, Michael Colaresi, Michael H. Crespin, and Dragomir R. Radev. 2006. An automated method of topic-coding legislative speech over time with application to the 105th-108th U. S. Senate. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.
22. Kevin M. Quinn, Burt L Monroe, Michael Colaresi, Michael H. Crespin, and Dragomir R. Radev. 2010. How to analyze political attention with minimal assumptions and costs. American Journal of Political Science, 54(1):209--228.
23. Mark Steyvers and Tom Griffiths. 2007. Probabilistic topic models. In T. Landauer, D. McNamara, S. Dennis, and W. Kintsch, editors, Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum.
24. Matt Thomas, Bo Pang, and Lillian Lee. 2006. Get out the vote: Determining support or opposition from Congressional floor-debate transcripts. In Proc. of EMNLP.