Congressional informal groups are as old as the Congress itself. While the Nation's legislative branch throughout its history has abounded with a variety of caucuses, rarely have the experiences of these ad hoc groups been chronicled in systematic fashion. However, the polity changed in the years after the Second World War and so did caucuses. The Democratic Study Group, established in 1959, heralded the era of a new type of caucus. They took on permanence, stability, and regularized procedures; many developed into bicameral and bipartisan groups.

The proliferation of caucuses led to House regulations in 1982 to insure their ethical and financial propriety, these regulations, in operation today, created a subset of caucuses: the Legislative Service Organizations (LSOs). Those caucuses which agree to abide by a set of regulations, including the submission of a quarterly report to the Clerk of the House, are granted the LSO designation by the House Administration Committee. LSOS may assess dues from its members, which are collected by the Clerk of the House and used as a dependable resource to pay LSO staff and administrative costs; LSOs are also entitled to House office space and use of equipment.

The 1982 regulations did not mute the debate over caucuses in general or over the
financial conduct of the LSOs in particular. The many caucuses of the 103rd Congress,
of which nearly a third are bicameral, provoke inquiry in many areas including the
LSO/institute nexus; the LSO use of House allowance funds; and caucus influence in the
public policy process.

During the 102nd Congress, a total of 140 caucuses were in existence; their activity
varied from minimal to energetic. Of these 140 caucuses, 42 were bicameral, 30 were
LSOs and 25 were exclusively composed of Senate members. The authoritative listing of
caucuses for the 103rd Congress is currently being prepared by the CRS and should be
available in June. (See Attachment I for a listing of the caucuses of the 102nd
Congress.)

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The most illustrious ancestor of the contemporary Congressional caucus was the boardinghouse of Jeffersonian Washington. In the early years, government employees in the Capital lived near where they worked and socialized almost exclusively with fellow colleagues from the executive, legislative or judicial branch. Boardinghouses provided living arrangements for Members of Congress and it was here that Members got together informally to discuss the issues of the fledgling Nation.

With the demise of the boardinghouse living arrangements, informal legislative groups did not disappear. To be sure, scattered references to informal groups can be found in more comprehensive studies of Congress and in anecdotal recollections of Members themselves; however, no systematic search has been conducted on the origins or development of Congressional informal groups. Although informal groups have been part of the U. S. Congress since colonial times, they remained evanescent configurations for over two hundred years, easily emerging and passing from the Congressional stage.

A change began to take place with informal groups in the 1960s which ultimately led to both systematic research on caucuses and internal regulation. This changing nature of caucuses is reflected in the story of the Democratic Study Group (DSG) which traces its roots to the mid 1950s. Indeed, the DSG is considered the vanguard of the contemporary caucus, characterized by a proclaimed statement of purpose, a definitive membership list, and in some cases a staff, subunits and automatic procedures.

The 1960s welcomed two more caucuses: the House Wednesday Group (the original Republican counterpart to the DSG) and the Members of Congress for Peace Through Law (MCPL), the first bicameral and bipartisan caucus; (in 1984 the MCPL changed its name to the Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus). Both groups are in existence today.

The 1970s was a time of historic change for Congress. Caucuses were not addressed by the reform movement of that era but they institutionalized and flourished in a nurturing environment. In 1974 there were ten caucuses, by 1980 caucuses numbered 57, and for the 102nd Congress the list had almost tripled to 140. (See Attachment I for the listing of caucuses from the 102nd Congress).

REGULATION OF CAUCUSES

The Obey Commission

The Commission on Administrative Review, often referred to as the Obey

Commission after its chairman, Rep. David R. Obey (D-WI), was established in July, 1976; its charge was ambitious: to study staffing, accounting and purchasing, office equipment procurement and use, communications, travel allowances and any other matter pertaining to the operations of the House. Caucuses were not a major focus of the Commission but the topic was addressed.

The Commission found that the House had responded in a variety of ways to the increased complexity and volume of its workload, one of which was the development of "nonofficial groups." For the first time, caucuses were officially recognized and defined. "A number of nonofficial or ad hoc groups have formed to assist Members in carrying out their responsibilities. Especially since 1970, the number of such groups has increased rapidly. Groups form along party lines and around issues; some include both House and Senate Members. About 20 ad hoc groups are presently active." (Final Report of the Commission on Administrative Review, H. Doc. 95-272, p. 617.)

In its final report to the House, the Obey Commission recommended that all ad hoc Member groups which receive private financial assistance file an annual report with the House of Representatives detailing certain information. In this way these groups would be held accountable for their use of staff, office space, and equipment financed with public funds. Additionally, the ad hoc entities were offered the designation of Legislative Service Organization (LSO) provided certain criteria, including size and dues structure and the prohibition of receipt of all private donations, were met. An LSO, funded by an account set up in the office of the House chief financial officer, to which LSO members would contribute a certain minimal amount, would be able to maintain an independent and dedicated staff. Salaries of the LSO staff would be paid directly by the House; furthermore, the House would provide office space to the LSO.

Although the Obey Commission recommendations, submitted as H. Res. 766, were rejected by the House in September, 1977, several key milestones for informal groups were passed. The Commission recognized that the informal groups of the 1970s were somehow different from the secret, almost mythical, social clubs such as the Chowder and Marching Club, the Acorns, and SOS, and were also distinguishable from the ephemeral groupings of Members that are a part of any legislative chamber's life. Secondly, the Obey panel was concerned about the appearance of impropriety in the commingling of House and private funds by some caucuses. And finally, official sanction should be bestowed on those groups which met certain restrictions.

The Regulations of 1979

Two years later in 1979, the House Administration Committee revisited the question of caucuses and issued regulations for the first time governing Legislative Service Organizations. An LSO was officially defined as "any organization, committee, commission, coalition, caucus or similar group consisting in whole or in part of Members of the House, designed primarily to provide legislative services and assistance to