[1][3][9][10] Universalism refers both to the broad allocation of benefits to recipients and the wide support these legislative measures receive in Congress.
[3] Oftentimes, pieces of the omnibus legislation are unconnected, so “owing to the unrelatedness of issues in distributive politics, the activities of single participants need not be related but rather can be specialized as the situation warrants it.”[4] With omnibus packages, benefits that only serve small populations are more likely to gain majority support for Congressional passage.
[14] Ferejohn and Rundquist rely on the notion that Congressmen strive only to serve their constituents, who are part of geographically sorted voting districts.
[16] Lowi and Schneider argue that distributive policies are rather more concentrated on those "powerful and positively constructed" groups, such as the elderly, business, veterans, and scientists.
[2] The cost of distributive programs contributies to their uncontroversial passage and is carried by the general public not a specific group of people.
[1][8] Distributive programs thrive on political gain because "congressmen are motivated by a desire to serve the economic interests of their constituencies.
[10] Other interest groups such as senior citizens and environmentalists are influential in the distribution of benefits and the support incentives of Congressmen.
These include the traditional pork barrel of public works,[21] rivers and harbors projects,[3][6][21][22] highway construction,[21] categorical grants-in-aid,[21] urban renewal,[8][21] mass transit,[21] sewage treatment plants,[3][21] model cities,[3][6] and military procurement.
The most representative example is entitlement programs targeting specific socioeconomic groups in mind, such as “the malnourished (food stamps), the unhealthy (Medicare), the poor (welfare), the retired (social security), the injured worker (workmen’s compensation), or the automobile driver (automotive product safety).