"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy," they write, "while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."
I guess it's important today for universities to verify the painfully obvious.
In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule -- at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
What is important to note here is how much worse these findings would be if money in the political process, you know, led to a corrupting influence on our representative democracy. We're fortunate as the world's lone freer-than-free, exceptional country...that political campaign funding from billionaires and Fortune 500 behemoth corporations doesn't unduly influence our incapable-of-being-bribed elected officials.
I don't know if U.S. elected representatives just have a type of impenetrable, patriotic Teflon conscience-coating that other nation's representatives don't have, you know, or what. But what I do know is that any worries or fears that mountain-sized political money-speech donations by a tiny minority of very rich Americans will turn our representative republic into a sewer of plutocratic corruption have been wildly overblown by liberal worry wart-weenies.
Like Justice Roberts asserted in his latest ruling......just because less than 1% of Americans pay for all the free political campaign speech doesn't NECESSARILY mean that our elected officials are beholden to that 1%......once elected. Just because Princeton found that the will of the 99% has "little or no independent influence" on our elected officials......does not mean that our political system has been corrupted by the 1%'s free speech money bags. Not necessarily.
You see, for free speech money bags from 1%'ers to political campaigns to have a negative and corrupting influence on the process.....there would of necessity have to be, you know, quid pro quos and so forth. And, as one can quickly conclude from the Princeton study results.....there's just no evidence of bribery to be found. None at all.
Authentic attempts at bribery of our politicians are rare nowadays. That's because our society has become so altruistic over these last few decades. We're just much better people now.....much more civilized.
Furthermore, what's with all these studies and reports and what not? It's all just so silly to continue to search for a connection between huge political donations by a few "successful" Americans and the policy votes made by elected officials who received those donations. Witch-hunting, comes to mind.
In the future, when the Capitol building is renamed the David Koch Memorial Building and the Pentagon is known as the Boeing Building.....there will still be no evidence.....none.....that forkliftable money bags of free speech have a corrupting influence on our electoral process.
Because.....if limitless political donations had negative, corrupting influence on our political process.....there would have to be some clearcut evidence.
About This Blog