Charles Stewart has posted this draft on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The 17th Amendment is perhaps the most significant change in the American electoral system brought about through amending the Constitution. It changed the theory about who senators represented, shifting the focus from state governments, per se, to the residents of states. Mechanically, it shifted the electorate from the relatively small confines of state legislatures to much larger mass electorates. Lest we lose track of its significance, many supporters of the Tea Party movement blame the 17th Amendment for causing :a failure in the federalist structure, federal deficit spending, inappropriate federal mandates, and federal control over a number of state institutions.” The respectability of this position was demonstrated when a half dozen Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate in 2010 expressed support for repeal, including victorious candidates in Florida, Colorado, and Utah. Leaving aside the question of whether the 17th Amendment led to the destruction of federalism and state institutions, the fact that it so significantly changed the electoral system for Senate candidates naturally raises the question of how candidates, victorious senators, and the Senate itself changed because of the amendment’s ratification. This is not a new thought, as is evidenced by the small-but-vigorous literature on the subject (King and Ellis 1996; Crook and Hibbing 1997; Wirls 1999; Ellis and King 1999; Engstrom and Kernell 2003; Rogers 2009; Gailmard and Jenkins 2009).