Posted on 04/17/2014 4:18:06 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
It’s not just your imagination: The influence of money in politics has indeed drowned out the voices of American voters, a new analysis shows, with runaway corporate lobbying and a lack of campaign finance reform to blame for giving much more political weight to the wealthy.
Researchers at Princeton University and Northwestern University compared the public’s influence on 1,779 policy issues between 1981 and 2002, finding that more often than not, the interests of wealthy groups and individuals won out over the demands of the general public. For instance, when 80 percent of the public asked for a change of some sort, they got their way only about 43 percent of the time.
The study, its authors say, points to the overwhelming power of wealthy lobbying groups and individuals backing certain interests in American politics, and the marginalization of voters and public advocacy groups.
“I expected to find that ordinary Americans had a modest degree of influence over government policy and that mass-based interest groups would serve to promote those interests,” Martin Gilens, a political scientist at Princeton and a co-author of the study, wrote in an email to Al Jazeera.
“What we found instead was that ordinary Americans have virtually no influence over government policy and that mass-based interest groups as a whole do not reliably side with the wishes of the average citizen.”
(Excerpt) Read more at america.aljazeera.com ...
Better to post an opinion piece from DU or HP than this aljazeera crud.
Well, hell, I wonder what Aljazeera thinks of America’s campaign finance laws? They don’t like them? You’re kidding...
Ignore the campaign BS and vote with the knowledge you picked up along the way. Nothing in a political ad should sway your vote(s). (Plural added for those who vote demodummie)
The writer likely believes voting would be more fair if the government ran the elections...
Boy they just hate the NRA and the Koch brothers, don’t they ?
Did you read it? What exactly did you disagree with?
Here is another article Dizard wrote:
CASE OF JAILED BLOGGER RAISES FIRST AMENDMENT CONCERNS
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/5/free-speech-legalschnauzerrogershuleralabama.html
Do you disagree with it also?
I am not promoting Aljazeera, I am posting an interesting article about big money controlling our government.
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Yes- let’s end the influence of the teacher’s unions and the trial lawyers! Everyone will support that, ya?
It’s common amongst lovers of big government.
And why do they have influence? Because lawmakers agree with their issues?
“For instance, when 80 percent of the public asked for a change of some sort, they got their way only about 43 percent of the time.”
Just because most wanted a change doesn’t mean that they all agreed on what the chance should be. Some wanted it one way, others wanted something else. Yet others may have lobbied for a third option, so nothing got done. No mystery here, no proof of corruption.
You won’t “proof of corruption”? Where to begin...
http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showforum=60
I will be happy to find more examples later but I need to get ready for work now.
I’m just surprised you doubt our government is corrupt or influenced by money.
I might be more inclined to go with “American the Brainless.” Doesn’t matter how much money is spent on ads, who is spending it or what it says as long as voters do their own homework. It is the morons who believe what they hear and read in the media that elect people like Harry Reid.
The majority of voters are morons. I think we can agree on that. And there should be some standard of “truth in advertising” for campaign ads. I am sick of stupid Americans destroying this nation.
“And why do they have influence? Because lawmakers agree with their issues?”
I think it’s the cash. If lawmakers agreed with the ideology, the unions would not need to dangle cash in front of them.
I never said our government wasn’t corrupt or influenced by money. I just pointed out that the example given was rather lame. I do think there is much more under the table corruption than there is influence from campaign donations, however.
Use the NRA as an example. They give money to promote a candidate that they think will help their cause. If that person wins, he or she will help out the NRA. Despite what some will try to portray it as, this is in no way any sort of corruption. The NRA simply promoted a candidate that was already sympathetic to their cause. This is in essence what elections are supposed to be about.
Actually, the unions are supplying the cash to fund an expensive campaign.
“The majority of voters are morons. I think we can agree on that. And there should be some standard of “truth in advertising” for campaign ads. I am sick of stupid Americans destroying this nation.”
I certainly agree with you on this point. However I think a “Truth in Advertising” rule would somehow be virtually unenforceable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.