& Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1998. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA. 143 INTERESTS VERSUS IDEOLOGY IN THE RATIFICATION OF THE 16TH AND 17TH AMENDMENTS RANDALL G. HOLCOMBE AND DONALD J. LACOMBE* The ideology of Progressivism that peaked in the early years of the 20th century brought with it the 16th amendment, which allowed the federal government to tax incomes, and the 17th amendment, which mandated direct elections of Senators. Both were rati®ed in 1913. The 16th amendment provided the ®nancing for government to expand its scope, and the 17th amendment created more democratic accountability, which both were goals of the Progressive movement. An examination of House and Senate voting on these amendments suggests that those opposed to the amendments voted against them based on interests rather than ideology. The 16th and 17th amendments to the US Constitution, both rati®ed in 1913, were a part of the Progressive movement's agenda to make federal government policy more responsive to the economic well-being of its citizens. In the 19th century the role of government was limited mainly to the protection of individual rights and the defense of national interests, but toward the end of that century there was an increasing demand from citizens to expand the role of government so that government would look out for the economic interests of its citizens in addition to just protecting their rights. 1 The 16th amendment, which allowed a federal income tax, was a way to provide revenues to ®nance the Progressive agenda. The 17th amendment, which required the direct election of Senators, was a way to make government more accountable to the people, and therefore more responsive to the economic well-being of the masses rather than the nation's elite. Both amendments were a part of the Progressive ideology. This paper examines whether opposition to the amendments went along ideological lines, or whether those who opposed the amendments did so in support of their more narrow self-interests. The Progressive Era, which dates from approximately the beginning of the 20th century until the start of World War I, brought with it a number of reforms intended to restrict the in¯uence of those with signi®cant economic power, in order to enhance the economic well-being of the larger number of citizens with ECONOMICS AND POLITICS 0954-1985 Volume 10 July 1998 No. 2 * The authors gratefully acknowledge helpful comments from Bruce Benson, Lawrence Kenny, Tim Sass, workshop participants at Florida State University, and two anonymous reviewers. 1 Anderson and Hill (1980) note the Supreme Court decisions that enabled government to broaden its role in the economy, starting with Munn v. Illinois in 1877, and Higgs (1987) documents the change in ideology that occurred around the turn of the 20th century and led to an increasing governmental presence in individuals' economic aairs.