Search

In this article, I argue that members of Congress are strategic in who they hire and how they decide to assign certain legislative portfolios. Using a novel dataset of all House of Representatives staffers for the 114th Congress, including each staffer's legislative portfolio and career history, I test whether issue assignments are the result of longer aide tenure on the Hill (as the staffing literature suggests), experience working in multiple member offices, or both. I find that members systematically assign legislative responsibilities viewed as more policy-laden and prestigious to legislative aides who have been employed by multiple member offices, even when holding constant the number of years served on the Hill. These results suggest that members value those staffers who are most likely to be able to plug into their extended networks of contacts in order to cultivate information sources and coalitions for policy advancement. Members value this ability even a staffer's than, more years of experience working on the Hill. This article deepens our understanding of the staffer characteristics that members value in the legislative context and provides insight into the importance of broad networks in managing policy priorities on a member's behalf. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]