III. Caucuses vs. Parties and Committees Speaker Gingrich fought to reform and limit significantly caucus resources. The domination of party leaders and partisanship in the congressional agenda also suggested the expansion in the caucus system would be unlikely. No budget, staff, or official role in the lawmaking process should make caucuses a rarity in today’s Congress. However, today there are more than 400 caucuses in the U.S. House and each Member of Congress belongs to almost 10 caucuses on average. Despite this, congressional caucuses still cause confusion for scholars. There is little that we know in regards to legislators’ membership in caucuses, however, it can be determined that legislators are involved in caucuses for the benefits that are available in such. Many scholars suggest one benefit is members are relatively free to decide which caucus(es) they wish to belong to. Also, members can base involvement off constituents’ interest, thus “signaling to their constituents their awareness of the importance of an issue to the district.” Thus, caucuses then can also serve as an arena to work with other legislators with like-minded interest and ideas. Caucuses can range in many of subjects and issues. As of …show more content…
This is due mainly to the fact that we live in an ever-changing world. Therefore, issues are always changing and growing. However, despite the large numbers of caucuses, these bodies have little authority. Unlike committees, caucuses cannot hold hearings or markups. They also have no authority over legislation. In line with Speaker Gingrich’s implanted regulations, caucuses still cannot hire their own staff, though members often loan staffers from their individual offices. While their authority is limited, today’s caucuses provide much of the knowledge and support base for the background and development of supported