In Short:

Changes in the filibuster did not significantly alter the volume of speeches or time devoted to congressional debate. Where differences are observed, they usually indicate that the filibuster detracts from, rather than bolsters, public discussion on the floors of Congress.

Abstract

We investigate whether the filibuster stimulates public debate and discussion within Congress, as its advocates argue, or whether, instead, it discourages legislators from devoting time and attention to bills they know will not pass, as its critics attest. To do so, we exploit multiple sources of variation in the filibuster, measures of legislative discussion, and identification strategies. In the preponderance of analyses, we observe null effects. Where significant differences are observed, they nearly always suggest that a strengthening (weakening) of the filibuster coincides with a reduction (increase) in the volume of floor speeches or time devoted to legislative affairs. Whatever benefits the filibuster may confer, they do not appear to include enhanced discussion on the floors of Congress.

About the author

William G. Howell

Dean & PRofessor, School Of Government & Policy

William Howell has written widely on separation-of-powers issues and American political institutions, especially the presidency. He currently is working on research projects on separation of powers issues, the institutional foundations of effective government, and emergent threats to democracy.