{ "id": "R40683", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "R", "number": "R40683", "active": true, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "Congressional Member Organizations (CMOs) and Informal Member Groups: Their Purpose and Activities, History, and Formation", "retrieved": "2023-04-13T04:03:18.139406", "id": "R40683_28_2023-03-21", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2023-03-21_R40683_8966384ac45e97dfd7693d929e208e0af352e179.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R40683/28", "sha1": "8966384ac45e97dfd7693d929e208e0af352e179" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2023-03-21_R40683_8966384ac45e97dfd7693d929e208e0af352e179.html" } ], "date": "2023-03-21", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R40683", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 590132, "date": "2019-01-23", "retrieved": "2019-12-20T20:08:17.107446", "title": "Congressional Member Organizations (CMOs) and Informal Member Groups: Their Purpose and Activities, History, and Formation", "summary": "This report examines the historical development and contemporary role of Congressional Member Organizations (CMOs) in the House, as well as informal Member groups in the House, Senate, and across the chambers. Commonly, these groups are referred to as caucuses, but they will be referred to collectively as informal Member organizations in this report to avoid confusion with official party caucuses. Some examples of groups that modern observers would consider informal Member organizations date back as far as the early 1800s, but the number of groups has grown substantially since the 1990s. \nMembers of the House and Senate may form these groups and participate in their activities for a variety of reasons. Often the objectives of these groups coincide with Members\u2019 policy objectives or representational considerations. These groups enable Members to exchange information and ideas with colleagues, and can facilitate interactions among Members who might not otherwise have opportunities to work with one another. \nSome groups may be eligible to register with the Committee on House Administration as a Congressional Member Organization (CMO), which enables House Members to utilize some personal office resources in support of CMO legislative activities. CMOs may include Senators among their members, but the Senate has no registration process for Member groups. Informal Member organizations that are not registered with the Committee on House Administration (including those in the Senate) are called informal Member groups. The term informal Member organization is used when referring to both CMOs and informal Member groups. \nSince the 1970s, the House has issued various regulations governing informal Member organizations. This history provides some additional background on existing CMO regulations and can provide further insights about some of the perceived benefits and shortcomings of these groups. To increase accountability and transparency in an era when Member groups had greater access to institutional resources, the House created its first regulations in 1979 for Member groups registered with the Committee on House Administration as Legislative Service Organizations (LSOs). In 1995, LSOs were abolished and CMOs were created, with limited abilities to use official resources in support of Member groups. Beginning in 2015, the Committee on House Administration created a designation of Eligible Congressional Member Organizations (ECMOs) for certain CMOs, which enables Members to assign personal office staff to work on behalf of an ECMO; four CMOs in the 115th Congress were designated as ECMOs.\nIn recent years, the number of CMOs and informal Member groups has increased, more than doubling from the 108th Congress (350) to the 115th Congress (854). This increase has taken place even though (with limited exceptions in certain specific circumstances) House Members can no longer use their Members\u2019 Representational Allowance (MRA) to directly support a CMO or informal Member group as an independent entity; provide congressional office space for these organizations; use the congressional frank to support their activities; or accept goods, funds, or services from private organizations or individuals to support their activities. Despite these limits imposed on the options available to House Members to support informal Member organizations, CMOs and other informal Member organizations have retained an ongoing role in the congressional policymaking process. Their influence has endured largely because many Members continue to consider their participation in informal Member groups and CMOs as advantageous in achieving their legislative and representational goals.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40683", "sha1": "09ef06a931f8d9318b0b1652dab36a2dd7ab5324", "filename": "files/20190123_R40683_09ef06a931f8d9318b0b1652dab36a2dd7ab5324.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40683", "sha1": "d9b82ec7670d9652ee113c8a1c86247ac0235e49", "filename": "files/20190123_R40683_d9b82ec7670d9652ee113c8a1c86247ac0235e49.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4777, "name": "Congressional Operations, Leadership, & Funding" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 458526, "date": "2017-01-26", "retrieved": "2017-02-03T19:11:43.804776", "title": "Congressional Member Organizations: Their Purpose and Activities, History, and Formation", "summary": "This report examines the historical development and contemporary role of congressional Member organizations (CMOs) in the House and informal Member groups in both the House and the Senate. It discusses the differences between CMOs (which register with the Committee on House Administration) and informal Member groups (which do not register with the Committee on House Administration) and the reasons Members form these groups (often referred to as caucuses). \nThe report also presents the rise and fall of legislative service organizations (LSOs), the House\u2019s decision in 1995 to issue regulations for establishing CMOs and governing their behavior, and the subsequent regulation of CMOs in the House by the Committee on House Oversight/Committee on House Administration. It provides a step-by-step guide for House Members and staff who might be interested in forming a CMO. Many of the steps in the guide may be of interest to Senators and their staff who are considering forming an informal Member group in the Senate.\nCMOs exist to affect public policy, either directly through policy advocacy for a region or an issue, or indirectly by attracting media attention, or through the socialization and orientation of their Members. Nearly all CMOs serve as forums for the exchange of information. Many hold regular Member or staff meetings, typically weekly, monthly, or quarterly depending on the legislative calendar, to exchange information and develop legislative strategy. Many CMOs also invite outside speakers and groups to make presentations to the CMO\u2019s members.\nThere are seven types of CMOs: (1) intraparty CMOs promote the policy views of like-minded Members within a political party; (2) personal interest CMOs (the most prevalent type) typically focus on a broad, single concern, such as the environment or children, that is often under the jurisdiction of more than one committee; (3) industry CMOs advocate the interests of a particular industry; (4) regional CMOs champion the interests of a particular region; (5) state/district CMOs advocate the interests of a particular state or district; (6) national constituency CMOs advocate the interests of particular constituencies, such as women, minorities, and veterans; and (7) diplomacy CMOs concern themselves with improving foreign relations with another country or region of the world.\nIn recent years, the number of CMOs and informal Member organizations has increased, more than doubling from the 108th Congress (350) to the 114th Congress (800). This increase has taken place even though (with limited exceptions in certain specific circumstances) House Members can no longer provide CMOs and informal Member groups congressional office space; use the congressional frank or lend them money to support their activities; use their Member Representational Allowance to directly support them as an independent entity; or accept goods, funds, or services from private organizations or individuals to support their activities. Despite the limitations imposed on the options available to House Members to support informal Member organizations, CMOs and, to a somewhat lesser extent given their ad-hoc nature, informal Member groups, have retained an important role in the congressional policymaking process. Their influence has endured largely because many Members continue to consider their participation in informal Member groups and CMOs as advantageous in achieving their primary goals of policy advocacy, reelection, and power within the institution.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40683", "sha1": "d3a1ed59e188917ac4bb2d316907e15aba28c77c", "filename": "files/20170126_R40683_d3a1ed59e188917ac4bb2d316907e15aba28c77c.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40683", "sha1": "d1a42fb55c704a89651698237bdd57650ac85b52", "filename": "files/20170126_R40683_d1a42fb55c704a89651698237bdd57650ac85b52.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 444491, "date": "2015-08-11", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T18:37:26.016404", "title": "Congressional Member Organizations: Their Purpose and Activities, History, and Formation", "summary": "Congressional Research Service\n7-5700\nwww.crs.gov\nR40683\nSummary\nThis report examines the historical development and contemporary role of congressional Member organizations (CMOs) in the House and informal Member groups in both the House and the Senate. It discusses the differences between CMOs (which register with the Committee on House Administration) and informal Member groups (which do not register with the Committee on House Administration) and the reasons Members form these groups (often referred to as caucuses). \nThe report also presents the rise and fall of legislative service organizations (LSOs), the House\u2019s decision in 1995 to issue regulations for establishing CMOs and governing their behavior, and the subsequent regulation of CMOs in the House by the Committee on House Oversight/Committee on House Administration. It provides a step-by-step guide for House Members and staff who might be interested in forming a CMO. Many of the steps in the guide may be of interest to Senators and their staff who are considering forming an informal Member group in the Senate.\nCMOs exist to affect public policy, either directly through policy advocacy for a region or an issue, or indirectly by attracting media attention, or through the socialization and orientation of their Members. Nearly all CMOs serve as forums for the exchange of information. Many hold regular Member or staff meetings, typically weekly, monthly, or quarterly depending on the legislative calendar, to exchange information and develop legislative strategy. Many CMOs also invite outside speakers and groups to make presentations to the CMO\u2019s members.\nThere are seven types of CMOs: (1) intraparty CMOs promote the policy views of like-minded Members within a political party; (2) personal interest CMOs (the most prevalent type) typically focus on a broad, single concern, such as the environment or children, that is often under the jurisdiction of more than one committee; (3) industry CMOs advocate the interests of a particular industry; (4) regional CMOs champion the interests of a particular region; (5) state/district CMOs advocate the interests of a particular state or district; (6) national constituency CMOs advocate the interests of particular constituencies, such as women, minorities, and veterans; and (7) diplomacy CMOs concern themselves with improving foreign relations with another country or region of the world.\nIn recent years, the number of CMOs and informal Member organizations has increased, more than doubling from the 108th Congress (350) to the 114th Congress (800). This increase has taken place even though House Members can no longer provide CMOs and informal Member groups congressional office space; use the congressional frank or lend them money to support their activities; use their Member Representational Allowance to directly support them as an independent entity; or accept goods, funds, or services from private organizations or individuals to support their activities. Despite the limitations imposed on the options available to House Members to support informal Member organizations, CMOs and, to a somewhat lesser extent given their ad-hoc nature, informal Member groups, have retained an important role in the congressional policymaking process. Their influence has endured largely because many Members continue to consider their participation in informal Member groups and CMOs as advantageous in achieving their primary goals of policy advocacy, reelection, and power within the institution.\nContents\nCMOs: Their Purpose and Activities\t1\nWhy Members Create CMOs and Informal Member Groups\t3\nSeven CMO Types\t4\nArguments For and Against the Formation of CMOs\t7\nThe Rise and Fall of LSOs and the Institutionalization of CMOs: An Historical Perspective\t10\nThe 1950s: The Democratic Study Group is Established\t11\nThe 1960s: Two Informal Member Groups Were Organized\t12\nThe 1970s: Informal Member Groups Increased in Number and Became Subject to House Regulations\t12\nThe 1980s: Informal Member Groups Continued to Increase in Number and LSOs Came Under Increased Scrutiny\t15\nThe 1990s: LSOs Were Abolished and CMOs Were Created\t17\nCMOs in the 21st Century\t21\n\nFigures\nFigure 1. CMOs by Type, 114th Congress\t6\n\nTables\nTable 1. House Congressional Member Organizations, House Legislative Service Organizations, and House and Senate Informal Groups, 92nd \u2013 114th Congresses\t12\n\nAppendixes\nAppendix. Initiating a CMO\t23\n\nContacts\nAuthor Contact Information\t26\nAcknowledgments\t26\n\nCMOs: Their Purpose and Activities\nThere are 800 informal Member organizations listed in the Congressional Yellow Book or registered with the Committee on House Administration. According to self-reported information contained in the Congressional Yellow Book, the House\u2019s 703 informal Member organizations had from 1 to 294 members, with an average membership of 21, and the Senate\u2019s 87 informal Member organizations had from 1 to 71 members, with an average membership of 9. On average, House Members report membership in 34 informal Member organizations (ranging from 0 to 136) and Senators report membership in 16 (ranging from 0 to 52). Of these 800 informal organizations, 300 registered with the Committee on House Administration during the 114th Congress as congressional Member organizations (CMOs).\nThe term congressional Member organization refers to a group of Members who join together in pursuit of common legislative objectives and register the organization with the Committee on House Administration. In many instances, Members assign personal staff (including shared employees) under the Member\u2019s control to assist the CMO in carrying out its legislative objectives. Any informal group of House Members who wish to use personal staff to work on behalf of an informal Member group, discuss their membership in the group in official communications, or mention their membership on their official House website must register the group with the Committee on House Administration as a CMO. There are no registration requirements in the Senate.\nInformal Member organizations that are not registered with the Committee on House Administration (including those in the Senate) are called informal Member groups. The term informal Member organization is used when referring to both CMOs and informal Member groups. This report focuses on CMOs, primarily because they tend to be more long-lasting and influential than informal Member groups.\nCMOs exist to affect public policy, either directly through policy advocacy for a region or an issue, or indirectly by attracting media attention, or through the socialization and orientation of their Members. Nearly all CMOs serve as forums for the exchange of information. Many hold regular Member or staff meetings, typically weekly, monthly, or quarterly depending on the legislative calendar, to exchange information and develop legislative strategy. Many also invite outside speakers and groups to make presentations to the CMO\u2019s Members.\nHouse Members who join CMOs must conduct their activities in accordance with applicable provisions in law, the House Ethics Manual, the Congressional Handbook, and the Rules of the House (including House Rule XXIII, the House Code of Official Conduct). In general, unless otherwise specified, the same regulations applicable to House Members as individuals also apply to their participation in CMOs. Members can contact the Committee on House Administration; the Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, better known as the Franking Commission; and the Office of Advice and Education of the House Committee on Ethics for information and guidance.\nHistorically, Senate informal groups have drawn upon resources available to Senators for materials and services, without dedicating any additional funding to the organization. Because of their traditional, non-official status and informal nature, specific regulation of such groups in the Senate has not been deemed necessary. As in the House, informal groups of Senators are collectively subject to the same regulations applicable to Senators as individuals as indicated in the Senate Ethics Manual, Rules of the Senate, and the Senate Code of Official Conduct. Separate regulations expressly recognizing them and prescribing their operations have never been implemented in the Senate.\nThe Committee on House Administration lists the requirements for registration as a CMO, and other provisions related to CMO funding, resources, and communications on its website, at http://cha.house.gov/member-services/congressional-memberstaff-organizations/cmocso-registration-form#cmo. Under these guidelines, CMOs are required to electronically register with the Committee on House Administration each Congress. They must submit the following information in a letter on official letterhead in PDF format to the committee\u2019s CMO registration website, at http://cha.house.gov/member-services/congressional-memberstaff-organizations/cmocso-registration-form#reg_form:\nCMO\u2019s name;\na statement of purpose;\nCMO\u2019s officers; and\nname, telephone number, and email address of staff designated to work on issues related to the CMO (minimum of one per officer).\nIf the submitted material complies with its guidelines, the committee approves the application and includes the CMO in its online list of CMOs. The CMO lists for the 107th Congress through the 114th Congress are located at http://cha.house.gov/member-services/congressional-memberstaff-organizations.\nMembers of both the House and Senate may participate in a CMO, but at least one of the CMO\u2019s officers must be a House Member, and the participation of Senators in a CMO does not impact the scope of authorized CMO activities in any regard. In terms of funding and resources:\nCMOs have no separate corporate or legal identity;\nCMOs are not employing authorities;\nMembers\u2019 representational allowance may not directly support a CMO as an independent entity;\nCMOs may not be assigned separate office space;\nneither CMOs, nor individual Members, may accept goods, funds, or services from private organizations or individuals to support the CMO;\nMembers may use personal funds to support the CMO; and\nCMO Members, in support of the objectives of that CMO, may use employees (including shared employees) and official resources under the control of the Member to assist the CMO in carrying out its legislative objectives, but no employees may be appointed in the name of a CMO.\nIn terms of communications:\nCMOs may not use the congressional frank, nor may a Member lend his or her frank to a CMO;\nMembers may use official resources for communications related to the purpose of a CMO. Any such communications must comply with the franking regulations;\nMembers may devote a section of their official website to CMO issues, but CMOs may not have independent web pages;\nMembers may use inside mail to communicate information related to a CMO;\nMembers may prepare material related to CMO issues for dissemination;\nofficial funds may not be used to print or pay for stationery for the CMO; and\nMembers may refer to their membership in a CMO on their official stationery.\nWhy Members Create CMOs and Informal Member Groups\nLeading congressional scholars have argued that until the 1970s, Members, especially junior Members, were expected to follow and respect the norms of seniority, apprenticeship, and legislative specialization. Junior Members were, for the most part, \u201cexpected to be seen, but not heard, to wait years to build seniority, and to be deferential to his committee chairmen and leaders\u201d and to \u201cdevelop a narrow specialty within his committee\u2019s jurisdiction that would in time contribute to the committee\u2019s productivity.\u201d Congressional scholars argued that these norms enhanced the ability of both houses of Congress, especially the more populous House, to consider legislation in a relatively efficient manner. As one of these leading congressional scholars noted:\nThe committee system divided and processed the workload of Congress and developed specialization and expertise. Committees became the congressional subunits that crafted legislation and operated as policy innovators. The party system coordinated the work of Congress, even if at different times it gave varying attention to monitoring the progress and the substance of legislation.\nFor many years, most Members viewed following the norms of seniority, apprenticeship, and legislative specialization as a path to achieve what a leading congressional scholar has argued are Members\u2019 three primary goals: policy advocacy, reelection, and power within the institution. However, during the 1970s, many Members, especially junior Members, no longer considered these norms compatible with their primary goals.\nThe decline of party voting by the electorate; the growing influence of mass media, especially of television, in elections; the professionalization of electioneering through the use of consultants and survey research firms; and campaign finance reforms changed the nature of congressional elections. Instead of relying on party organizations for electoral support, Members increasingly formed \u201ca more individualistic and candidate-centered process in which constituency service and attentiveness to district interests represented a sine qua non of successful electioneering.\u201d Moreover, during the 1970s Congress\u2019s decentralized institutional structure, especially in the House, \nproved increasingly obstructive to the attainment of the political goals of many Members: the role of party leadership was criticized as too conservative, both in terms of its ideological cast and its lack of innovative and integrative properties; important issues went unaddressed by standing and select committees; internal party groups were inadequately represented on party committees; and Members were too often requested to vote on controversial bills which were unlikely to pass successfully into law.\nGiven these changes, increased rank-and-file participation in the legislative process through the formation of informal Member organizations was seen by many Members, particularly junior Members, as a means to realize both electoral and policy objectives. Electorally, Members could use their participation in informal Member organization activities as a signal to their constituents that they were working on their behalf. Institutionally, participation in informal Member organization activities provided Members an opportunity to join forces with other like-minded Members to address issues that fell both within and outside of their assigned committees, without the need to show deference to the views of their committee and subcommittee leaders. As a leading congressional scholar noted in 1998, informal Member organizations (referred to as caucuses):\n... are easy to establish and operate.... They are vehicles for information, education, and the development of new policy options, and they can coordinate across party lines and bring adversarial groups together. For these reasons, caucuses have become increasingly important to Members\u2019 personal careers and to policy making. Entrepreneurs like Newt Gingrich have used caucuses to develop expertise, influence policy, gain visibility within the House, and launch leadership careers in the formal congressional system. The prevalence of caucuses, their importance in policy making, and their contributions to Members\u2019 careers suggest that they ... likely will persist even in a period of congressional centralization. The caucus system supplements - but also competes with - existing party and committee systems. It works because it serves Members\u2019 interests.\nSeven CMO Types\nDuring the 1990s, a leading congressional scholar identified the following six distinctive CMO types:\nintraparty CMOs promote the policy views of like-minded Members within a political party;\npersonal interest CMOs typically focus on a broad, single concern, such as the environment or children, that is often under the jurisdiction of more than one committee;\nindustry CMOs advocate the interests of a particular industry;\nregional CMOs champion the interests of a particular region;\nstate/district CMOs advocate the interests of a particular state or district; and\nnational constituency CMOs advocate the interests of particular constituencies, such as women, minorities, and veterans.\nSince then, diplomacy CMOs have increased in number to the point that they can now be considered their own type, as opposed to a subset of personal interest CMOs. For example, 48 of the 300 CMOs registered with the Committee on House Administration during the 114th Congress concerned themselves with improving foreign relations with another country or region of the world (see Figure 1).\nMembers who join intraparty CMOs, such as the Blue Dog Coalition and the Republican Study Committee, tend to use their CMO membership as a forum to exchange information and develop legislative strategy with party colleagues who share their political ideology. They tend to work on a wide range of issues and \u201chave been important factors in agenda setting\u201d by attracting attention to issues and serving as a forum for the exchange of information and the development of legislative strategy. Eight intraparty CMOs registered with Committee on House Administration during the 114th Congress.\nPersonal interest CMOs, such as the Congressional Diabetes Caucus and the Congressional Sportsmen\u2019s Caucus, tend to focus on increasing public and congressional awareness of issues, offer new solutions for addressing them, and attempt to influence the congressional agenda. Past research has suggested that personal interest CMOs tend to meet less frequently than other CMO types to establish a position or legislative strategy, but are more active than most others in attempting to influence the legislative agenda. They also are more likely than other CMO types to be bipartisan and bicameral. Of the seven different CMO types, personal interest CMOs are the most numerous. During the 114th Congress, 145 personal interest CMOs registered with Committee on House Administration.\nFigure 1. CMOs by Type, 114th Congress\n\nSource: CRS computation; and Committee on House Administration, \u201c114th Congress Congressional Member Organizations,\u201d at http://cha.house.gov/member-services/congressional-memberstaff-organizations.\nNotes: In nearly every instance, the CMO\u2019s name clearly indicated which one of the CMO types best described its purpose. In those few instances where the CMO\u2019s name created uncertainty concerning which type best described its purpose, the CMO Members\u2019 websites and press releases were examined to determine which type best described its purpose.\nCMOs that focus on issues of interest to particular industries, such as the Congressional Automotive Caucus, Congressional Shipbuilding Caucus, and Congressional Steel Caucus, tend to attract Members who are strongly committed to promoting that industry\u2019s interests. Members often view their membership as a means to increase congressional awareness of the industry\u2019s concerns, develop legislative strategy, and signal to constituents that they are actively promoting their interests. Because many industries are subject to federal regulation and are affected by trade agreements, industry CMOs are more likely to interact with executive branch officials than other CMOs. Industry CMOs are of particular interest to junior Members and those who do not serve on the relevant committees of jurisdiction. During the 114th Congress, 44 industry CMOs registered with the Committee on House Administration.\nRegional CMOs, such as the Northeast-Midwest Congressional Coalition and Congressional Western Caucus, and state/district CMOs, such as the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, tend to focus on altering distribution formulas in federal grant-in-aid programs and promoting changes in other legislative provisions that they believe will assist their region or state/district. Although regional CMOs tend to be bipartisan, the changes they advocate are sometimes at the expense of other regions, states, or districts and can result in high levels of conflict that cut across partisan affiliation. During the 114th Congress, 15 regional CMOs and 3 state/district CMOs registered with Committee on House Administration.\nNational constituency CMOs, such as the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and Congressional Hispanic Conference, tend to have broad concerns that often fall under the jurisdiction of more than one committee. In addition to engaging in a wide range of agenda-setting activities, such as testifying before congressional committees and drafting bills and amendments, national constituency CMOs are more likely than other CMOs to attempt to place issues on the legislative agenda. Members tend to join national constituency CMOs to raise public and congressional awareness of their issues, exchange information, and develop legislative strategy. During the 114th Congress, 37 national constituency CMOs registered with Committee on House Administration.\nLike personal interest CMOs, diplomacy CMOs, such as the Congressional Caucus on Brazil, Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, and Friends of Scotland Caucus, focus on increasing public and congressional awareness of issues related to the country or region of interest, offer new solutions for addressing them, and attempt to influence the congressional agenda. As mentioned previously, 48 diplomacy CMOs registered with the Committee on House Administration during the 114th Congress.\nArguments For and Against the Formation of CMOs\nAs mentioned previously, CMOs are formed primarily because many Members view their participation in CMO activities as a means to realize both electoral and policy objectives. A CMO can\nbe readily established as circumstances and issues warrant without enacting legislation or changing House, Senate, or party rules;\nopen or limit its membership as it deems necessary to accomplish its goals;\nexpand Members\u2019 opportunities to specialize on issues because there is no limit on the number of CMOs that can exist nor on the number of CMOs that a Member can join;\nserve as a vehicle for the resolution of issue and policy differences between committees, parties, or the two houses;\nprovide an opportunity for a comprehensive and coordinated approach to issues over which committee jurisdiction is unclear or fragmented;\nconduct briefings and use other means to provide Members information and analysis on issues of interest;\nattract attention to issues that the CMO members believe need to be addressed; and\nenhance Members\u2019 relations and standing with particular constituencies.\nSome observers have argued that CMOs may offer advantages for individual Members, but they present disadvantages as well, especially for Congress as a whole. Specifically, they have argued that CMOs\nhave become so numerous that their significance has been diminished as nearly every cause or issue has a CMO;\ncompete with the formal leadership and committee structure and functions;\nundermine or even impede the legislative process by further fragmenting the congressional policymaking process;\nmay facilitate certain special interests in attaining undue attention in the legislative process;\ncreate a perception of conflict of interest for Members who may have formal legislative responsibilities within the same subject areas covered by the CMO (i.e., by appearing to be an advocate and adjudicator of an issue at the same time); and\npresent the possibility of Congress being viewed negatively by the public as overly influenced by special interests.\nIn the past, some Members and political organizations also objected to the practice, allowed until 1995, of providing informal Member groups congressional office space, funding from the Member\u2019s clerk-hire allowance to hire staff, and funding from Member\u2019s official expenses allowance to support the group\u2019s operating expenses (these allowances, and the Official Mail Allowance, were merged into a single Member\u2019s Representational Allowance in 1995). From 1979 to 1995, informal Member groups receiving such assistance were required to register with the Committee on House Administration as legislative service organizations (LSOs).\nLSOs were not subject to House rules concerning how House Members and committees could spend public funds. Some Members and political organizations argued that LSOs could bring the House into public disrepute if they circumvented House spending rules. For example, media reports suggested that some LSO spending and staffing decisions raised ethical questions concerning possible nepotism and cronyism, and that some LSOs used taxpayer funds for expenses that normally were prohibited or required pre-approval for Members and committees. This concern largely dissipated following the decision in 1995 to establish criteria for informal Member groups to register their group as a CMO and to abolish LSOs by prohibiting Members from providing informal Member groups congressional office space and funding from their Member\u2019s Representational Allowance.\nSince then, ethical issues have occasionally been aired in the press concerning the nature and extent of Member participation on the governing bodies of outside, non-profit, tax-exempt organizations with informal ties to CMOs, and whether Members should be allowed to raise funds for these organizations. Under the current House ethics rules, House Members are permitted to serve on the boards of certain outside groups, including non-profit foundations and institutes, so long as they do not serve for compensation and their service does not conflict with a Member\u2019s general obligation to the public. Members are also permitted to raise funds for certain non-profit organizations. However, they are prohibited from raising money for any organization that is \u201cestablished or controlled by Members of Congress\u201d without seeking and receiving permission from the House Committee on Ethics. The only exceptions are those expressly permitted by the House Committee on Ethics (campaigns, political action committees, and organizations whose principal activities are unrelated to a Member\u2019s official duties):\nThe Ethics Reform Act of 1989 enacted a government-wide restriction with respect to the solicitation of funds or other items of value by Members, officers, and employees. This provision, codified at 5 U.S.C. \u00a7 7353, bars Members, officers, and employees from asking for or accepting anything of value from anyone who seeks official action from the House, does business with the House, or has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance of official duties. The only exceptions are those expressly permitted by the Standards [now Ethics] Committee, as discussed below, as the supervising ethics office for the House. These statutory restrictions cover the solicitation of \u201canything of value,\u201d regardless of whether the official personally benefits from it.\nAs a general matter, the Committee permits (without the need to seek prior Committee approval) Members and staff to solicit on behalf of organizations qualified under \u00a7 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code \u2013 including, for example, \u00a7 501(c)(3) charitable organizations \u2013 subject to certain restrictions. Solicitations on behalf of non-qualified entities or individuals are decided on a case\u2013by\u2013case basis through the submission to the Standards [now Ethics] Committee of a written request for permission to make such solicitations. The general permission granted by the Committee does not extend to activities on behalf of an organization, regardless of tax status, that was established or is controlled by Members (or staff). In such circumstances the Member must seek and be granted written permission by the Standards [now Ethics] Committee before making any solicitations on the organization\u2019s behalf. Such permission will only be granted for organizations that exist for the primary purpose of conducting activities that are unrelated to the individual\u2019s official duties. The Committee has determined that the only exceptions under the statute are for solicitations on behalf of the campaign and other political entities.\nQuestions as to whether a nonprofit organization\u2019s activities are related to a Member\u2019s official duties can be directed to the House Committee on Ethics\u2019 Office of Advice and Education.\nThe Rise and Fall of LSOs and the Institutionalization of CMOs: An Historical Perspective\nCongressional Members have gathered together to promote their mutual interests in ad hoc, informal settings, outside of the formal committee and political party systems, since colonial times. For example, when Congress first convened in Washington, DC, many Members resided in local boardinghouses and spent considerable time discussing legislation and building coalitions after-hours with their colleagues who also resided in their house. Historians have noted that there was a close correlation in the voting records among those Members who boarded together, often forming boardinghouse voting blocs. In 1812, the efforts of two informal congressional groups, the War Hawks and the Invisibles, were instrumental in the declaration of war against Great Britain in the War of 1812. In 1841, the Abolitionist Group, an informal congressional group opposed to slavery, hired a staff aide to assist them in opposing a House gag rule that prevented consideration of petitions and legislation opposing slavery. In 1842, several Members of Congress formed the Congressional Temperance Society to advocate abstinence from intoxicating beverages.\nMore recently, the Chowder and Marching Society was founded in 1949 by 15 Republican House Members, including future Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford. It was initially formed to oppose legislation providing monthly bonuses for war veterans, which the Members considered too costly. Its membership later increased to about 40, with one or more Members added each Congress depending on the number of Members who did not return from the preceding Congress. It served as a somewhat exclusive social forum for leading Republican Members of Congress to discuss pending legislation and legislative strategy. In 1957, several freshmen House Republican Members formed the Acorns. It met weekly and served both as a social group and as a forum to discuss legislative issues.\nPrior to the 104th Congress (1995-1997), the terms congressional Member organization, informal group, and congressional caucus were used almost interchangeably to describe informal Member organizations. Initially, informal group was the most commonly used term. However, by the early 1980s, the institutionalized nature of some of the groups and the regulation of those recognized as LSOs by the Committee on House Administration starting in 1979 led many political observers to prefer the term congressional caucus. By the late 1980s, congressional Member organization was being used more frequently. It helped to distinguish unofficial groups from official party caucuses of Members (also called a caucus by House Democrats and a conference by Senate Democrats and by Republicans in both houses). However, pursuant to rules promulgated by the Committee on House Oversight (now named the Committee on House Administration) on February 8, 1995, the term congressional Member organization, as expressly defined, referred solely to groups registered with the committee. As a result, since 1995 the term congressional Member organization has been used to describe informal Member groups registered with the Committee on House Administration and the term informal Member group has been used for informal Member organizations not registered with the committee.\nThe 1950s: The Democratic Study Group is Established\nThe Democratic Study Group (DSG), established in 1959, is considered by many observers to be the first modern informal Member organization. It was formed by moderate and liberal House Democrats to counter the influence of southern conservative Democrats who chaired many of the House\u2019s committees at the time. Forty Members attended its organizational meeting in 1959. Over time, its membership increased, ranging from 115 to 170 dues-paying Members during the early 1970s, to around 225 dues-paying Members during the mid-1970s, and 250 dues-paying Members in 1980. Membership then fell to around 200 dues-paying Members during t", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R40683", "sha1": "ef389ae32c550903b3202cb85adcfbb95b70548b", "filename": "files/20150811_R40683_ef389ae32c550903b3202cb85adcfbb95b70548b.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R40683", "sha1": "f6080bb1cbe8e40bdc32fbec95183120407e5c98", "filename": "files/20150811_R40683_f6080bb1cbe8e40bdc32fbec95183120407e5c98.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc503319/", "id": "R40683_2015Feb10", "date": "2015-02-10", "retrieved": "2015-04-30T17:37:21", "title": "Congressional Member Organizations: Their Purpose and Activities, History, and Formation", "summary": "This report examines the historical development and contemporary role of congressional Member organizations (CMOs) in the House and informal Member groups in both the House and the Senate. It discusses the differences between CMOs and informal Member groups, and the reasons Members form these groups with a step-by-step guide for House Members and staff who might be interested in forming a CMO. The report also presents the rise and fall of legislative service organizations (LSOs), the House's decision in 1995 to issue regulations for establishing CMOs and governing their behavior, and the subsequent regulation of CMOs in the House by the Committee on House Oversight/Committee on House Administration.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150210_R40683_2a295367b5b283ca47820918b373a40b1145c97d.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150210_R40683_2a295367b5b283ca47820918b373a40b1145c97d.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congress", "name": "Congress" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Members of Congress", "name": "Members of Congress" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congressional committee membership", "name": "Congressional committee membership" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc463465/", "id": "R40683_2014Aug14", "date": "2014-08-14", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "Congressional Member Organizations: Their Purpose and Activities, History, and Formation", "summary": "This report examines the purpose and activities of Committee on House Administration as congressional Member organizations (CMO) and the reasons Members form them. It also identifies and describes seven CMO types, and it provides an overview of the historical development of informal Member organizations since the first Congress, focusing on their regulation in the House by the Committee on House Oversight/Committee on House Administration, the rise and fall of legislative service organizations (LSOs), and the House's decision in 1995 to issue regulations for establishing CMOs and governing their behavior. It concludes with a step-by-step guide for House Members and staff who might be interested in forming a CMO.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20140814_R40683_69f4bfbc0332419a9666ff1d71cb838cf6203ebe.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20140814_R40683_69f4bfbc0332419a9666ff1d71cb838cf6203ebe.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congress", "name": "Congress" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Members of Congress", "name": "Members of Congress" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congressional committee membership", "name": "Congressional committee membership" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc227647/", "id": "R40683_2013Sep24", "date": "2013-09-24", "retrieved": "2013-11-05T18:07:05", "title": "Congressional Member Organizations: Their Purpose and Activities, History, and Formation", "summary": "This report examines the purpose and activities of Committee on House Administration as congressional Member organizations (CMO) and the reasons Members form them. It also identifies and describes seven CMO types, and it provides an overview of the historical development of informal Member organizations since the first Congress, focusing on their regulation in the House by the Committee on House Oversight/Committee on House Administration, the rise and fall of legislative service organizations (LSOs), and the House's decision in 1995 to issue regulations for establishing CMOs and governing their behavior. It concludes with a step-by-step guide for House Members and staff who might be interested in forming a CMO.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20130924_R40683_96daadc505cada57327411c34d080641f5847767.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20130924_R40683_96daadc505cada57327411c34d080641f5847767.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congress", "name": "Congress" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Members of Congress", "name": "Members of Congress" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congressional committee membership", "name": "Congressional committee membership" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc271999/", "id": "R40683_2013Aug28", "date": "2013-08-28", "retrieved": "2014-02-03T19:46:03", "title": "Congressional Member Organizations: Their Purpose and Activities, History, and Formation", "summary": "This report examines the purpose and activities of Committee on House Administration as congressional Member organizations (CMO) and the reasons Members form them. It also identifies and describes seven CMO types, and it provides an overview of the historical development of informal Member organizations since the first Congress, focusing on their regulation in the House by the Committee on House Oversight/Committee on House Administration, the rise and fall of legislative service organizations (LSOs), and the House's decision in 1995 to issue regulations for establishing CMOs and governing their behavior. It concludes with a step-by-step guide for House Members and staff who might be interested in forming a CMO.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20130828_R40683_3f6a4a3b6e1b2f36022e74424da579dee5193617.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20130828_R40683_3f6a4a3b6e1b2f36022e74424da579dee5193617.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congress", "name": "Congress" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Members of Congress", "name": "Members of Congress" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congressional committee membership", "name": "Congressional committee membership" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc822390/", "id": "R40683_2010Jun28", "date": "2010-06-28", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Congressional Member Organizations: Their Purpose and Activities, History, and Formation", "summary": "This report examines the purpose and activities of CMOs and the reasons Members form them. It also identifies and describes seven CMO types, and it provides an overview of the historical development of informal Member organizations since the first Congress, focusing on their regulation in the House by the Committee on House Oversight/Committee on House Administration, the rise and fall of legislative service organizations, and the House\u2019s decision in 1995 to issue regulations for establishing CMOs and governing their behavior. It concludes with a step-by-step guide for House Members and staff who might be interested in forming a CMO. Many of the steps in the guide may be of interest to Senators and their staff who are considering forming an informal Member group in the Senate.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20100628_R40683_d24cfb3d49da21d4a94125b69ad652a7979ecabb.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20100628_R40683_d24cfb3d49da21d4a94125b69ad652a7979ecabb.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congress", "name": "Congress" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Members of Congress", "name": "Members of Congress" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congressional committee membership", "name": "Congressional committee membership" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc26176/", "id": "R40683_2009Jul01", "date": "2009-07-01", "retrieved": "2010-07-07T17:39:19", "title": "Congressional Member Organizations: Their Purpose and Activities, History, and Formation", "summary": "There are 645 informal (Congressional) Member organizations listed in the Congressional Yellow Book or registered with the Committee on House Administration. Of these 645 informal organizations, 256 are registered with the Committee on House Administration as a congressional Member organization (CMO). This report examines the purpose and activities of CMOs and the reasons Members form them. It also identifies and describes seven CMO types, and it provides an overview of the historical development of informal Member organizations since the first Congress. It concludes with a step-by-step guide for House Members and staff who might be interested in forming a CMO.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20090701_R40683_2a31983f1f5c2be6926a2eac86e9916eaa877838.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20090701_R40683_2a31983f1f5c2be6926a2eac86e9916eaa877838.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congress", "name": "Congress" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congressional committees", "name": "Congressional committees" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Members of Congress", "name": "Members of Congress" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Congressional committee membership", "name": "Congressional committee membership" } ] } ], "topics": [ "American Law", "Economic Policy" ] }