Book excerpt: Agenda-setting power is a double-edged sword that increases the likelihood that an agent is chosen to be a proposer, but may reduce the probability that the agent is included in a winning coalition. We experimentally test the theoretical prediction of potentially negative returns to agenda-setting power in two-period legislative bargaining noted in Baron & Ferejohn (1989). We find that higher agenda-setting power benefits subjects in all treatments except one where we automate the second period. In all treatments, a vast majority of subjects exhibit a strict preference for higher agenda-setting power. In line with most prior experimental literature, we find usual patterns of deviations from equilibrium predictions as well as learning towards equilibrium behavior. Finally, we find that subjects tend to choose coalition partners with similar agenda-setting power. We argue that this homophily drives the result of negative agenda-setting power in the treatment where the second period is automated.