I wonder if there has been a change in how senators are judged by their constituents. We’re they judged on their individual records rather than party records in the past?
Prior to spending reform, the party had some broad behind-the-scenes levers to “encourage” support (read: pork). Today, power vests in subcommittee chairs which typically go to those with tenure (e.g. DiFi who can’t manage to do her job because of old age but also can’t really be kicked out by Schumer)
The legislative process changed when the baby boomers entered Congress in the 1970s and started opening up committee processes and requiring publicly recorded votes. At the same time, there was a corporate reaction to a glut of environmental and consumer safety regulation. In 1973, you see the birth of the lobbying industry as ALEC is the first of many "think-tanks" to form.
Now legislators are accountable to corporate donors, not their constituents. It's easy to track which legislators provide a good ROI. There's more to it than that, but those are the major causal events that lead to the change in legislator incentives.
