Scientific study suggests U.S. is technically a democracy, but becoming an oligarchy functionally

 Yes, the U. S. has the structure of a democracy and rule by the people -- we have a constitution, bill of rights, regular elections, majority rule, peaceful transfer of power, free press, etc.   But how much power do the people have to influence what our government actually does?   Is our press really free when money interests dominate the content of news sources -- and the political ads disguised as welfare advocacy ads -- that such a large number of citizens rely on for information?

This seems particularly relevant to the consequences of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision of 2010, as well as to the anticipated consequences of the 2014 McCutcheon decision -- both opening up the doors to more political influence by wealthy, anonymous donors.

To be published this fall in the academic journal Perspectives on Politics, a reserch study by Martin Gilens (Princeton) and Benjamin Page (Northwestern) offers scientific evidence to back up the commonly held view that wealthy Americans and groups that speak for big business have far more influence on U. S. government policies than average citizens.

They studied 1,779 policies that were enacted between 1981 and 2002, comparing the preferences on each policy of the average American (at the 50th percentile of income) with those of the economic elite (90th percentile), and with those of large special interest groups, to determine how often certain income levels and organized interest groups got the policy results that they favored.

It makes almost no difference whether a policy is supported or opposed by average citizens (think sensible gun control, immigration reform, campaign finance reform).   The graphs show that when 0% of average citizens want the policy, the probably of enactment is 30%;   when 100% want it, probability is about 32%.  In other words, it makes virtually no difference what the average citizen wants.

In contrast, the graph for the economic elite shows that, when 0% want a policy, the probability is 0%;  when 80% want it, probability is 45%;  when 100% want it, probability is 59% (think closing tax loopholes).  Graph results for the organized interest groups are similar (think NRA).

Interpretations of the meaning of this will vary, but the liberal, progressives people I listen to are saying this is evidence that we are headed for, if not already there, becoming an oligarchy.   The authors themselves conclude:

Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

 How can the Roberts-Alito-Scalia-Thomas-Kennedy conservative coalition on SCOTUS not see that this could not be the intent of the Founding Fathers?   Deciding that money = speech in the political realm has got to be one of the worst decisions made by this court in modern times.   

Democracy has to be vigilantly protected, because there will always be those who want to accumulate power, wealthy, and privilege.   Unregulated, free-market capitalism will not protect democracy.   It will lead to an oligarchy, the control of government by a small number of wealthy people.    That's where we seem to be headed.

Ralph