Data and Methodology: Data Statistics
In total, the present study included the full voting record of both congressional chambers as voting baselines for the 328 person-vote observations from the five sanctions under analysis. The statistics from these observations are found below; due to the regular mid-session changes in membership, only the Ukraine Freedom Support Act included a full 535 votes — 435 from the House of Representatives and 100 from the Senate. As was previously discussed, person-vote observations were recorded on a spectrum anchored by the value +1 (Yay) and -1 (Nay), with Not Voting valued in the middle as 0. In order to bias against ad populum voting habits and to explore the assumption that a Nay vote against a stronger Yay vote chamber would represent a greater demonstration of individual voting power than merely following a strong Yay vote trend, all votes were also weighted relative to their individual chamber and the aggregate voting record of both congressional chambers.
For this purpose, Not Voting observations were excluded from weighting as they correspond to a value of 0 on the aforementioned voting spectrum. Under the weighted vote formula, a Yay person-vote observation coded as +1 * (1-P) with P being the percentage of Yay votes divided by the total number of votes less Not Voting cast in the individual chamber. A Nay vote is coded as -1 * P. For the combined voting record of both chambers, the value of P changes to the percentage of total Yay votes from both chambers divided by the total number of votes less Not Voting cast in both chambers. The weighted formulas remained the same. In this way, Nay votes were afforded an increased degree of analysis given that they rendered a stronger metric by not following ad populum voting trends.
H.R.6156, the Magnitsky Act (final vote on December 14, 2012)
Five-hundred thirty-three person-vote observations were recorded for H.R.6156 from both the House of Representatives (433) and the Senate (100) of which there were 457 total Yay votes (365 in the House, 92 in the Senate), 51 Nay votes (45 in the House, 8 in the Senate), and 25 Not Voting observations (all from the House). Person-vote observations by party affiliation broke down into:
● 138 Yay votes, 38 Nay votes, and 18 Not Voting observations by Democrats in the House for 194 total votes;
● 44 Yay votes, 3 Nay votes, and 0 Not Voting observations by Democrats in the Senate for 47 total votes;
● 221 Yay votes, 7 Nay votes, and 7 Not Voting observations by Republicans in the House for 235 total votes;
● 53 Yay votes, 2 Nay votes, and 0 Not Voting observations by Republicans in the Senate for 55 total votes; and
● 1 Yay vote, 1 Nay vote, and 0 Not Voting observations by Independents in the Senate for 2 total votes.
The data set for H.R.6156 consisted of 70 person-vote observations (51 from the House, 19 from the Senate) of which one person-vote observation was from the bill’s author, 14 were from cosponsors, 16 were from committee leadership in both chambers, and 39 were from subcommittee leadership in both chambers. One sponsor and one committee leader served dual roles as subcommittee leaders in their respective chambers during the observation period.
Twenty-eight Democrats (19 from the House, 9 from the Senate) and 42 Republicans (32 from the House, 10 from the Senate) were included in the data set for H.R.6156. Of the data set, 82.86% held energy interests either through campaign contributions, personal finances, or their constituents. The percentage of energy interests by chamber varied from the aggregate, with the House slightly under, at 82.35%, and the Senate above, at 84.21%. Aggregates by party affiliation demonstrated more energy exposure to Republicans, with 97.62% of Republican observations holding energy interests compared to 60.71% of Democratic observations. The bill’s author and 21.43% of the cosponsors held energy exposure.
Of the data set, 86.11% of Yay person-vote observations were connected to energy interests, while all Nay and 60% of Not Voting person-vote observations were connected to energy. The most common energy exposure identified was receiving campaign contributions, with 78.57% of the data set having received them during the observation period. Like the aggregate, political affiliation corresponded to a difference in levels of campaign contributions, with half of Democratic observations including campaign contributions and 97.62% of Republican observations including them. Voting and aggregate energy interest data broken down by party affiliation and chamber is provided in Table 2. More detailed voting and energy interest data statistics are included in Tables 3 and 4 in Appendix A.
Table 2
Voting and aggregate energy interest for H.R.6156 data set by party affiliation and chamber
S.2124, H.R.4152, SSIDES (final vote on April 6, 2014)
Thirty-two person-vote observations were recorded for S.2124, H.R.4152 from both the House of Representatives (432) and the Senate (100), of which there were 477 total Yay votes (379 in the House, 98 in the Senate), 36 Nay votes (34 in the House, 2 in the Senate), and 19 Not Voting observations (all from the House). Person-vote observations by party affiliation broke down into:
● 187 Yay votes, 2 Nay votes, and 9 Not Voting observations by Democrats in the House for 198 total votes;
● 52 Yay votes by Democrats, 0 Nay votes, and 0 Not Voting observations in the Senate for 52 total votes;
● 192 Yay votes, 32 Nay votes, and 10 Not Voting observations by Republicans in the House for 234 total votes;
● 44 Yay votes, 2 Nay votes, and 0 Not Voting observations by Republicans in the Senate for 46 total votes; and
● 2 Yay votes, 0 Nay votes, and 0 Not Voting observations by Independents in the Senate for 2 total votes.
The data set for SSIDES consisted of 61 person-vote observations (41 from the House and 20 from the Senate), of which two person-vote observations were from the bill’s authors (one author each from S.2124 and H.R.4152), five were from cosponsors, 11 were from committee leadership in both chambers, and 43 were from subcommittee leadership in both chambers. Both authors served as committee leaders in their respective chambers, two cosponsors served as committee leaders and two as subcommittee leaders in their respective chambers, and two committee leaders served a dual role as a leader of a subcommittee in their respective chambers, one of which was also a cosponsor, during the observation period.
Twenty-six Democrats (16 from the House, 10 from the Senate) and 35 Republicans (25 from the House, 10 from the Senate) were included in the data set for S.2124, H.R.4152. Of the data set, 75.41% held energy interests through campaign contributions, personal finances, or their constituents, and the percentage of energy interests by chamber was not much different, with the House slightly above the aggregate at 75.61% and the Senate slightly under at 75%. Aggregates by party affiliation demonstrated more energy exposure to Republicans, with all Republican observations holding energy interests compared to 42.31% of Democratic observations. Both bill’s authors and 60% of the cosponsors held energy exposure.
Of the data set, 72.73% of Yay person-vote observations were connected to energy interests, while 100% of Nay and Not Voting person-vote observations were connected to energy. The most common energy exposure identified was receiving campaign contributions, with 73.74% of the data set having received them during the observation period. Like the aggregate, political affiliation corresponded to a difference in levels of campaign contribution, with 38.46% of Democratic observations including campaign contributions and 100% Republican observations including them. Voting and aggregate energy interest data broken down by party affiliation and chamber is provided in Table 5. More detailed voting and energy interest data statistics are included in Tables 6 and 7 in Appendix A.
Table 5
Voting and aggregate energy interest for S.2124, H.R.4152 data set by party affiliation and chamber
S.2828, H.R.5859, the Ukraine Freedom Support Act (final vote on December 18, 2014)
Five hundred thirty-five person-vote observations were recorded for S.2828, H.R.5859 from both the House of Representatives (435) and the Senate (100), of which all observations were recorded as Yay votes due to the unanimous consent approval procedure used in both chambers. Person-vote observations by party affiliation broke down into:
● 199 Yay votes, 0 Nay votes, and 0 Not Voting observations by Democrats in the House for 199 total votes;
● 52 Yay votes, 0 Nay votes, and 0 Not Voting observations by Democrats in the Senate for 52 total votes;
● 236 Yay votes, 0 Nay votes, and 0 Not Voting observations by Republicans in the House for 236 total votes;
● 46 Yay votes, 0 Nay votes, and 0 Not Voting observations by Republicans in the Senate for 46 total votes; and
● 2 Yay votes, 0 Nay votes, and 0 Not Voting observations by Independents in the Senate for 2 total votes.
The data set for the Ukraine Freedom Support Act consisted of 74 person-vote observations (41 from the House, 20 from the Senate) of which two person-vote observations were from the bill’s authors (one author each from S.2128 and H.R.5859), 15 were from cosponsors, 13 were from committee leadership in both chambers, 43 were from subcommittee leadership in both chambers, and one was the senator who requested the use of the unanimous consent procedure. One of the bill’s authors served as a committee leader in their respective chamber, one cosponsor served as a committee leader and two as subcommittee leaders in their respective chambers, and two committee leaders served a dual role as a leader of a subcommittee in their chambers during the observation period. The senator who requested the use of the unanimous consent procedure, John Walsh (D-MT), sat on the delimited Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security during the observation period. Thus, the subcommittee’s leadership was not included in the sample set.
Thirty-three Democrats (16 from the House, 17 from the Senate) and 41 Republicans (25 from the House, 16 from the Senate) were included in the data set for S.2828, H.R.5859. Of the data set, 75.68% held energy interests through campaign contributions, personal finances, or their constituents, and the percentage of energy interests by chamber was not much different, with the House slightly under the aggregate at 75.61% and the Senate above at 78.79%. Aggregates by party affiliation demonstrated more energy exposure to Republicans, with 100% of Republican observations holding energy interests compared to 45.45% of Democratic observations. Both bill’s authors and 73.33% of the cosponsors held energy exposure.
Because all person-vote observations for this sanction were recorded as Yay votes due to no representative choosing to halt the unanimous consent procedure, 75.68% of Yay person-vote observations were connected to energy interests with neither Nay nor Not Voting person-vote observations connected to energy. The most common energy exposure identified was receiving campaign contributions, with 72.97% of the data set having received them during the observation period. Like the aggregate, political affiliation corresponded to a difference in levels of campaign contribution, with 39.39% of Democratic observations including campaign contributions and 100% of Republican observations including them. Voting and aggregate energy interest data broken down by party affiliation and chamber is provided in Table 8. More detailed voting and energy interest data statistics are included in Tables 9 and 10 in Appendix A.
Table 8
Voting and aggregate energy interest for S.2128, H.R.5859 data set by party affiliation and chamber
H.R.3364, Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (final vote on August 2, 2017)
Five hundred thirty-three person-vote observations were recorded for H.R.3364 from both the House of Representatives (433) and the Senate (100), of which there were 517 total Yay votes (419 in the House and 98 in the Senate), five Nay votes (three in the House and two in the Senate), and 11 Not Voting observations (all from the House). Person-vote observations by party affiliation broke down into:
● 190 Yay votes, 0 Nay votes, and 4 Not Voting observations by Democrats in the House for 194 total votes;
● 46 Yay votes, 0 Nay votes, and 0 Not Voting observations by Democrats in the Senate for 46 total votes;
● 229 Yay votes, 3 Nay votes, and 7 Not Voting observations by Republicans in the House for 239 total votes;
● 51 Yay votes, 1 Nay vote, and 0 Not Voting observations by Republicans in the Senate for 52 total votes; and
● 1 Yay vote, 1 Nay vote, and 0 Not Voting observations by Independents in the Senate for 2 total votes.
The data set for CAATSA consisted of 62 person-vote observations (38 from the House, 24 from the Senate), of which one person-vote observation was from the bill’s author, five were from cosponsors, 13 were from committee leadership in both chambers, and 43 were from subcommittee leadership in both chambers. Both the author and a cosponsor served as committee leaders together in their respective chambers, and four committee leaders served a dual role as a leader of a subcommittee in their respective chambers during the observation period.
Twenty-six Democrats (15 from the House, 11 from the Senate) and 36 Republicans (23 from the House, 13 from the Senate) were included in the data set for H.R.3364. Of the data set, 87.10% held energy interests through campaign contributions, personal finances, or their constituents; these differed greatly in the percentage of energy interests by chamber, with the House slightly above the aggregate at 87.50% and the Senate far under at 79.17%. Aggregates by party affiliation demonstrated more energy exposure to Republicans, with 100% of Republican observations holding energy interests compared to 69.23% of Democratic observations. The bill’s author and 80% of the cosponsors held energy exposure.
The data set did not include any person-vote observations other than Yay votes, and 87.10% of Yay person-vote observations were connected to energy interests. The most common energy exposure identified was receiving campaign contributions, with 72.58% of the data set having received them during the observation period. Like the aggregate, political affiliation corresponded to a difference in levels of campaign contribution, with 50% of Democratic observations including campaign contributions and 88.89% Republican observations including them. Voting and aggregate energy interest data broken down by party affiliation and chamber is provided in Table 11. More detailed voting and energy interest data statistics are included in Tables 12 and 13 in Appendix A.
Table 11
Voting and aggregate energy interest for H.R.3364 data set by party affiliation and chamber
H.R.5040/5515, Export Control Act (final vote on August 13, 2018 for H.R.5515)
Five hundred twenty-eight person-vote observations were recorded for H.R.5040/5515 from both the House of Representatives (428) and the Senate (100), of which there were 446 total Yay votes (359 in the House, 87 in the Senate), 64 Nay votes (54 in the House, 10 in the Senate), and 18 Not Voting observations (15 in the House, three in the Senate). Person-vote observations by party affiliation broke down into:
● 139 Yay votes, 49 Nay votes, and 5 Not Voting observations by Democrats in the House for 193 total votes;
● 40 Yay votes, 7 Nay votes, and 0 Not Voting observations by Democrats in the Senate for 47 total votes;
● 220 Yay votes, 5 Nay votes, and 10 Not Voting observations by Republicans in the House for 235 total votes;
● 46 Yay votes, 2 Nay votes, and 3 Not Voting observations by Republicans in the Senate for 51 total votes; and
● 1 Yay vote, 1 Nay vote, and 0 Not Voting observations by Independents in the Senate for 2 total votes.
The data set for the Export Control Act consisted of 61 person-vote observations (38 from the House, 23 from the Senate) from both H.R.5040 (Export Control Act) and H.R.5515 (John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019), as the latter was the omnibus piece of legislation through which H.R.5040 was passed. It is acknowledged that the data set for H.R.5040/H.R.5515 was not a pure set like the other sanctions, but the inclusion of the Export Control Act in the present study was important because it was the last legislative sanction placed on the Federation during the sample period. It was also not expected to bias the sample since the person-vote observations remain delimited to the those (sub)committee leaders believed to be most connected to the energy sector through their oversight and regulatory roles in addition to the legislation authors and sponsors, who, should the legislation include provisions that concerned the energy sector, would most likely also have had connections to the energy industry.
The data set’s 61 person-vote observations included:
● one observation for the author of H.R.5040, who also served as a committee leader in their respective chamber, and four observations for the cosponsors, one of whom served alongside H.R.5040’s author as a leader on the same committee during the observation period;
● one observation for the author of H.R.5515 and one observation for the cosponsor;
● 13 observations for committee leaders in both chambers, including two who served dual roles as subcommittee leaders in their respective chambers during the observation period; and
● 41 observations for subcommittee leaders in both chambers.
Twenty-five Democrats (14 from the House, 11 from the Senate) and 36 Republicans (24 from the House, 12 from the Senate) were included in the sample set for H.R.5040/5515. Of the sample set, 80.33% held energy interests either through campaign contributions or personal finances; data for determining constituency stake was not available for the observation period. The aggregate for the House was below the congressional aggregate, at 78.95%, and the Senate aggregate was above, at 82.61%. Aggregates by party affiliation demonstrated more energy exposure to Republicans, with 97.22% of Republican observations holding energy interests compared to 56% of Democratic observations. The author for H.R.5040 and 75% of the bill’s cosponsors held energy exposure, and the author for H.R.5515 also held energy exposure while the bill’s cosponsor did not.
Of the data set, 83.33% of Yay person-vote observations, 50% of Nay observations, and the single Not Voting observation were connected to energy interests. The most common energy exposure identified was receiving campaign contributions, with 73.77% of the sample set having received them during the observation period. Like the aggregate, political affiliation corresponded to a difference in levels of campaign contribution, with 44% of Democratic observations including campaign contributions and 94.44% Republican observations including them. Voting and aggregate energy interest data broken down by party affiliation and chamber is provided in Table 14. More detailed voting and energy interest data statistics are included in Tables 15 and 16 in Appendix A.
Table 14
Voting and aggregate energy interest for H.R.5040/5515 sample set by party affiliation and chamber
