Your mother was right – you’re judged by the company you keep. Among the first questions legislators and staff ask about any bill is “who is for it and who is against it?”
A piece of legislation’s cosponsors tells offices what the bill is about and how the office should respond. Committee and party leadership on a bill means it is likely to see action; a disproportionate number of folks from one party or another (or one wing of a party or another) similarly identifies the bill as extremely partisan and thus as one to avoid or support. A group of cosponsors known for human rights work defines the bill as about human rights, a group of cosponsors known as deficit hawks defines the bill as fiscally responsible. Groups of legislators (Blue Dogs, New Democrats, Tuesday Group Republicans, etc) have a similar effect. A lot of bi-partisan cosponsors form a range of perspectives defines the bill as safe. Seen in this light cosponsors are part of the messaging, they are part of the explanation of legislation.
As you seek cosponsors bear in mind what the existing list tells future targets. Democrats seeking to build bi-partisan support should probably avoid targeting Chris Shays (R-CT); his presence on a bill with lots of Democrats helps identify the legislation as not really bi-partisan (and he might not be back in January anyway). Mike Castle (R-DE) as an early cosponsor similarly identifies the bill as bi-partisan in name only. These are very good Republicans to get on the bill after a credible number of other Republicans are also on the legislation.
As you build lists of Democrats, be mindful of who is signing up at the start. A number of members of the Progressive Caucus on early will make it tough to bring conservative Democrats or Republicans on later. Cosponsors only from one part of the country can define the issue as a regional one, potentially limiting the success of the legislation.
Smart advocates know that the messenger matters – really smart advocates know this is because the messenger is the message.
