When above I said, "Actual evidence of plutocracy is who is actually allowed to lobby/craft bills," I should have been more specific by adding "that are considered for passage." Yes, anyone can suggest legislation; only a handful of deep pocketed (and long-armed) donors seem to get any of their suggested legislation put to committee for consideration.
It couldn't possibly be that those bills are better crafted, or better address an actual issue though, right?
It's gotten so bad, in fact, that the average person is often not even listened to when they come to visit their congressperson unless a campaign contribution accompanies their visit in advance (source: NPR, interviewing a former lobbyist/House staffer).
Do we have a name as to who that lobbyist/staffer is?
It turns out there is a pretty high degree of congruence between senators' positions and the opinions of their constituents—at least when those constituents are in the top third of the income distribution. For constituents in the middle third of the income distribution, the correspondence is much weaker, and for those in the bottom third, it is actually negative. (Yes, when the poorest people in a state support a policy, their senators are less likely to vote for it.)
Among other things that align with income distribution are things like education and intelligence. Is it that the poor lack a lobby, or is it that the poor are less likely to ask for policies that make sense legislatively or popularly?
Also, this assumes policies are in a bubble, and that income levels necessarily dictate who will be elected. Republicans representing poor areas still push for policies that "the poor" may not "support."
So, again, while potentially, as you say, "anyone can petition their elected official," only some people actually get heard.
Your proof, frankly, is lacking. It's not much in the way of evidence of a plutocracy as much as evidence that some ideas gain prominence, and others do not.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 31/10/13 20:37 (UTC)It couldn't possibly be that those bills are better crafted, or better address an actual issue though, right?
It's gotten so bad, in fact, that the average person is often not even listened to when they come to visit their congressperson unless a campaign contribution accompanies their visit in advance (source: NPR, interviewing a former lobbyist/House staffer).
Do we have a name as to who that lobbyist/staffer is?
It turns out there is a pretty high degree of congruence between senators' positions and the opinions of their constituents—at least when those constituents are in the top third of the income distribution. For constituents in the middle third of the income distribution, the correspondence is much weaker, and for those in the bottom third, it is actually negative. (Yes, when the poorest people in a state support a policy, their senators are less likely to vote for it.)
Among other things that align with income distribution are things like education and intelligence. Is it that the poor lack a lobby, or is it that the poor are less likely to ask for policies that make sense legislatively or popularly?
Also, this assumes policies are in a bubble, and that income levels necessarily dictate who will be elected. Republicans representing poor areas still push for policies that "the poor" may not "support."
So, again, while potentially, as you say, "anyone can petition their elected official," only some people actually get heard.
Your proof, frankly, is lacking. It's not much in the way of evidence of a plutocracy as much as evidence that some ideas gain prominence, and others do not.