used to claim they cared about policy.

A press write up of the study:

APRIL 18, 2014
Is America an Oligarchy?
BY JOHN CASSIDY
From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy....
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy



The original study:

From the Sept 2014 journal "Perspectives on Politics"

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page

ABSTRACT

There's money involved in these transactions, of course--there's payment made, and value (a speech, a party, a chance to hobnob) received.

I think a great deal of it is sitting in Hillary's bank account. Should someone get the ear of the President because they can put a half a million in their pocket?

self - fund at any point. She didn't speak, take the money and prance off to France to run up the credit card during fashion week. But she did stop the speaking engagements when she declared her candidacy.

Am I correct that you think that there shouldn't be any money exchanged for speaking to Wall Streeters and other corporatists in general? No presidential candidate should speak to "those people" for monetary consideration? Does it matter if you're a public servant, or a private citizen? Does it matter if the money is going to pay campaign bills?

Is the act of speaking for cash -- even if that cash is intended for a Democratic candidacy -- a disqualifier in your view?

quid pro quo, I sure that Goldman Sachs is hoping to get their money worth and that the only thing they're interested in is spreading Democracy through out the land.....


Please excuse me, I need to visit the restroom now, have a lovely fansta....day, I mean day. Take care of yourself.

political contributions, so I guess all of our candidates need to watch out for any attempts to influence them!

someone named CLINTON does it?

Should anyone who does this be tossed under the bus, scorned, subjected to ridicule and excoriation, as Clinton has been, for partying with bankers and giving speeches to them in exchange for cash? See, she's not the only one who has done this, but it seems to me, even though others have spoken MORE frequently to Wall Street bankers, that she is getting the lion's share of the "blame."

I'm trying to establish if there's a consensus where people will say declaratively "Yes, the rules should be the same for EVERYONE and EVERYONE should be subjected to the same scrutiny."

That paper is 41 pages long. I normally do examine links when people are polite enough to offer them, but that's a bit of a slog--can you give me the Cliff notes? TIA.

responses to your opinion. If you don't have lots of money, the government doesn't response to your opinion.

And I'm far less interested in spreading the blame around, then I am in fixing the problem. Which needs to start now. Not 4 or 8 years later.

PS-I really wonder about this 'tossed under the bus' meme I keep seeing people use. It's impossible to disagree with someone and still respect them?

I fall closer to Molly Ivins, you dance with the one what brung ya...

It's "bad" to lend legitimacy to the oligarchy by pandering to them. It sets bad precedent, and gives them more power.

Perhaps someday you will understand.

That's your position? Please be clear, I want to be sure I understand you.

clear.

Funny how you're the only one having trouble...

You're having trouble with them, so you insult me, instead.

Clinton knew she was going to run for the nomination.

But she expected that is was her turn; that the Clinton machine would intimidate potential competitors to stay out; that the risk averse insider Democratic Party establishment would get in line ...

... so what the hell, go out and rake in all the cash she could from any special interest group that would pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees, even if they were antithetical to the needs of working and middle class Americans.

It is the arrogance that comes across loud and clear to average folks -- she thinks she is above all the rest of us.

to go out and give speeches to bankers et. al. to raise money for a political campaign?

Is this ALWAYS wrong--or are there occasions when it's OK to address Wall Street in exchange for cash?

... who wants an end to Citizens United and advocates for Wall Street reform ...

... ought not to give paid private speeches to multi-billion dollar Wall Street investment banking firms ...

... and then expect anyone to believe her when she tries to run for office as a progressive populist.

Hillary Clinton has an huge credibility problem and it is growing bigger everyday.

Hillary Clinton is not one of us. Period.
Hillary Clinton has no idea what it is to be working or middle class and she hasn't for forty years.

Is it "OK" if it's not Hillary talking to Wall Street for cash on the barrel?

1) Federal employees are supposed to not just avoid impropriety, but even the appearance of impropriety. Why is Hillary Clinton different? Furthermore, even if she wasn't being paid to have particular political positions, you are propping up the corrupt big money Wall Street system by taking their money: it means those who don't agree with them are disadvantaged in elections. In effect you are furthering their agenda.

2) When confronted, she lied and said she didn't know she was running. Bullshit. Everyone knew since 2008 that she was going to run again.

So she's not "different." So, stow that argument.

Are you insisting that people who give speeches to Wall Streeters who offer money in exchange for the event, the ambiance, the opportunity to hobnob, have drinks, maybe dinner are being PAID to prop up the system? So--anyone who talks to wealthy corporatists who part with money for the experience are...what? Being influenced by them? Or influencing them? What's your point? Should we excoriate anyone who gives speeches to corporate players who are wealthy? Throw them out of the club? Even if their money is going to elect someone in the club?

Obama said he wasn't running, either--many, many times. So, is he, too, a "LIAR?"

You absolutely don't "KNOW" that she was going to run again. In fact, a lot of people told her that she didn't have to and from all reports she was terribly conflicted until she made the decision--but to you, "She LIED" because that's what you need to believe? I don't think the "bullshit" (your word) is on her, here.

You should do a little research before you lash out like that--it's not a good look.

To your point about her not being a federal employee at the time, you are correct. That doesn't change anything though. She still expected to run for high public office yet chose to personally enrich herself through the institutions which she would be responsible for regulating and legislating (yes, the President has authority over that).

Did Hillary ever say she wasn't running? Or "you'll know when I announce". I did KNOW she was running, everybody did. As did she, so I'll call her on her bullshit.

I don't really care what I look like to you

And you were wrong about that.

smh.

You can google all this, you know. She vacillated about the decision, and several of her advisers told her that she didn't need to do it, that she should rest on her SECSTATE laurels and go have some fun. She denied several times, when asked, that she was planning on running. She simply hadn't made up her mind. A year ago she was still deciding: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/01/29/potential-democratic-presidential-candidate-martin-malley-visit/w39eOdA1Mpg8ajVasJ6yhL/story.html

I guess it's a sin now, to weigh a decision before you make it? Or is it only a crime if youre Hillary?

So she didn't "expect" anything--as I've said before but you seem unable to take onboard for some odd reason.

It's obvious that you don't care what you look like--your words tell the tale.

...Hillary (and Bill) raised money for themselves.

How much money did BS get from the DSCC?

An attendee of one of the speeches indicated she was sympathetic to the poor banksters and assured them it was not just Wall Street that caused the financial meltdown, that it was all of us. BS to that. It shouldn't be a surprise that someone taking hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single speech would suck up to the people paying her. And she shouldn't be surprised when she runs a political campaign that people who hear about said speech form an opinion of her. She's trying to have it all, but you can't deal with the devil and then pretend you were sent from heaven.

their speeches...or just Hillary Clinton?

Do you have a link to your "poor banksters" claim?

If another candidate was similarly sympathetic in demeanor--would that matter at all to you? Or is it just Hillary who gets this kind of scrutiny and attention?

who will (or may be) enacting laws governing the industry you're speaking to, you should not only release transcripts, you should have someone film the event and post it for the world to see. You obviously took "poor banksters" in a serious vein. It was supposed to be satirical. The poor things think we should feel sorry for them after they bought their private jets, yachts, beach houses and gazillion dollar apartments all the while tanking the economy and stealing pension money from Grandma. I remember right after the crash - even before they were gifted with billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars - they gave out six figure bonuses. Matt Taibbi called them "vampire squid" and that's about the nicest thing anyone can say about them.

These private venues were billed as "retreats" for the people with fat wallets and generous hearts.

He even served as host of these "retreats."

Do you think he should release his transcripts, too?

He's a sitting Senator, running for the Presidency--is he more or less obligated than a former official, now a private citizen, in that regard?

He not only gave speeches, he "hobnobbed" at these luxury retreats with wealthy donors--some of them very heavy hitters, too.

Should the rules apply equally to him? Or should they be more stringent? Less?

I'd love to hear what Bernie might have said to the banksters. I'm sure he didn't sympathize with their plight and assure them we all caused the financial meltdown. By the way. Big difference between a retreat that is raking in cash for an entire party and individual pocket lining. One requirement of running for office under a party's banner is the obligation to beg for dollars. If he hadn't done it you'd be carping that he refused to raise cash for Democrats.

...each other.

Not sure this is what you mean. In short, I used to be a fan of Hillary. Used to.

is "like" them and shares their values? That familiarity breeds contempt?

That anyone giving speeches to these banksters who are paying for the privilege of hearing these speakers is "connecting" with them? They aren't just collecting some money?

...will often turn oneself into part of your audience. I believe that the purest person will sometimes be degraded simply by associating with non-pure people.

Of course, perhaps I'm speaking more of my experience than anybody else.

Speeches are OK if no one pays to hear them? If the politician speaks to Wall Street for free it's OK?

Or politicians should just not go near Wall Street?

What if the only reason they're speaking to/hobnobbing with these Wall Streeters is to get money for political campaigns? Is that still degrading? Isn't the purpose of gaining the money a consideration at all?

...knowing that 15-20 percent of politicians are sociopaths and bankers, probably near as much. Maybe you have not been around them much. The music industry is infested with them. I know how the mother fuckers are and what they're capable of..

If you think I'm just ranting about these type of people..you're wrong. They're charming and pure evil and they can affect a person who is a little innocent. That's why they hate each other. They know.

I'm just trying to get clarity, here, and figure out how people feel about this topic.

I don't think, given Citizens United, that there's anything wrong with a politician getting campaign money for speaking to groups--even if they are groups of bankers, or lobbyists, or industrialists. I think it's like Willie Horton robbing a bank--because that's where the money is.

Some people agree with me, but many do not--it's the ones that don't agree with me that I am interested in quizzing--I want to know exactly why they feel this way.

I like to think that I am/was. But perhaps can't see the forest for the trees and all that.

Mr Bjornsdotter and I own a business where we deal, often, with the government and municipalities. More times than not, there is a quid pro quo element in the contracts.

Having watched the Daley Machine (years ago), my county and local government in action it seems that it is somewhat the norm.

for the experience -- makes the politician corrupt, or compromised, or something?

Into their bank accounts.

Of course (they) owe the companies favors now. Quid Pro Quo is part of life.

And there's actually a name for it: "Soft Corruption" because its there, its corrupt, and its impossible to prove.

The Soft Corruption of Clinton, Inc. -- And How It Could Cost Democrats the Presidency
May 2015
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-soft-corruption-of-clinton-inc_b_7215108.html

This "poll" is BS, btw.

about politicians who speak to Wall Street and other corporate/wealthy people who pay large sums to hear their words. Does the experience compromise the politician? I get the impression that this is your opinion on the subject.

Does "personal" payment matter? What if that "personal" payment is put towards a campaign?

Is it better to be paid through a surrogate?

which were for profit for the Clintons.

Lumping them altogether as fundraisers is silly at best

war chest for the purpose of self-financing a portion of her campaign?

Is speaking to politicians for the purpose of getting campaign money OK, or is that "wrong" too?

Is it "OK" to fundraise amongst Wall Streeters, to give speeches to get campaign money?

to talk to Wall Streeters who have handed over cash for the pleasure of hearing a speech, a lecture, or a Q and A.

I'm asking DUers for their thoughts.

Do you want to share your views on this topic?

Is it ever OK? Or should Democrats never talk to groups of people from the wealthy corporate/business/banking sector?

service that seeks to influence government,

A 10 year ban? Doubt that would ever pass. You'd have to get the people hoping to get a job in the private sector to sign off on cutting off their own noses. Right now, it's six months, I think.