And This Is News?

Via Think Progress:

When organized interest groups or economic elites want a particular policy passed, there’s a strong likelihood their wishes will come true. But when average citizens support something, they have next to no influence.

That’s according to a forthcoming article in Perspectives on Politics by Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin I. Page of Northwestern University. The two looked at a data set of 1,779 policy issues between 1981 and 2002 and matched them up against surveys of public opinion broken down by income as well as support from interest groups.

They estimate that the impact of what an average citizen prefers put up against what the elites and interest groups want is next to nothing, or “a non-significant, near-zero level.” They note that their findings show “ordinary citizens…have little or no independent influence on policy at all.” The affluent, on the other hand, have “a quite substantial, highly significant, independent impact on policy,” they find, “more so than any other set of actors” that they studied. Organized interest groups similarly fare well, with “a large, positive, highly significant impact on public policy.”

From the report itself:

As to empirical evidence concerning interest groups, it is well established that organized groups regularly lobby and fraternize with public officials; move through revolving doors between public and private employment; provide self-serving information to officials; draft legislation; and spend a great deal of money on election campaigns.21 Moreover, in harmony with theories of biased pluralism, the evidence clearly indicates that most U.S. interest groups and lobbyists represent business firms or professionals. Relatively few represent the poor or even the economic interests of ordinary workers, particularly now that the U.S. labor movement has become so weak.22

But do interest groups actually influence policy? Numerous case studies have detailed instances in which all but the most dedicated skeptic is likely to perceive interest group influence at work. A leading classic remains Schattschneider’s analysis of the 1928 enactment of the Smoot-Hawley tariff, an astounding orgy of pork-barrel politics.23 Still, many quantitatively oriented political scientists seem to ignore or dismiss such non-quantitative evidence. There have also been some efforts (particularly during the Cold War era, when unflattering depictions of U.S. politics may have been thought unpatriotic) to demonstrate that interest groups have no influence on policy at all. Raymond Bauer, Ithiel Pool, and Lewis Anthony Dexter argued that business had little or no effect on the renewal of reciprocal trade authority. Lester Milbrath, having conducted interviews with lobbyists and members of Congress, rated lobbyists’ influence as very low. More recently, Fred McChesney(*) has made the ingenious argument that campaign contributions from interest groups may not represent quid pro quo bribery attempts by groups, but instead result from extortion by politicians who threaten to harm the groups’ interests.24

*McChesney's credibility is suspect because of his close ties to Cash-For-Comments type schemes - one of the more notorious being the Tobacco Lobby efforts to fight tax increases on tobacco products back in the 80s.  But more to the actual point, McChesney gives us a great example of The Turnaround (sales tactic). He's saying, "Oh no - these huge campaign contributions and the corrosiveness of lobbying and regulatory capture and the incest of the revolving door between Gubmint and Bidness - that doesn't really constitute a system of legalized bribery at all - it's those rotten politicians threatening to strangle our noble job creators if they don't pony up vast sums of money..."  It's easy to see it from that angle and I'm not pretending none of that goes on, but to make it out that the whole problem is one of simple extortion?  That sounds just a tiny bit too conveniently consistent with the standard malarkey of "government is all bad, in all things, and in all ways at all times."  And actually, McChesney isn't denying the quid pro quo shittiness anyway - he's acknowledging that people are buying influence and favors - he's just shifting the blame.

Not that any of this is going to make much difference.  This 'revelation' only confirms what we've known for a long time.  And let's remember we've been thru a coupla decades of Rising Idiocracy.  Paul Broun and Louie Gohmert - guys you shouldn't follow into your own fucking house - these are two of the leading lights in "conservative" politics.  Lots and lots of booger-eatin' morons just like them are in power - and will stay in power - because the people who put them in office have a lot more money than you have, and that's about all that's gonna matter for a while.