Political scientist Thomas Ferguson, an authoritative scholar on money and electoral politics, has a valuable and established political science theory called “the investment theory of politics .” He demonstrates that the U.S. is essentially controlled by coalitions of investors who come together around some mutual interest. Thus, “to participate in the political arena, you must have enough resources and private power to become part of such a coalition.”
He argues that since the early 19th century, there has been a persistent struggle for power among these groups of investors. Moments of conflict come along when groups of investors have differing points of view on public policy, while on policies where large investors are in agreement, no party struggle takes place. Importantly, parties attempt to change the public’s opinion to match those of its investors.
These findings are applicable elsewhere. In fact, further research by Ferguson and his colleagues on the effect of wealthy investors and money on election outcomes has shown that campaign expenditures are an excellent predictor of U.S. congressional races: “Money in American politics … suggests that analyses … of the American political system should begin by looking closely at money politics when they attempt to understand political change, especially political system’s steady shift to the right since the late nineteen sixties. Our tentative conclusion … is that seeing should, after all, be believing: the case in favor of the proposition that money drives US elections is significantly strengthened.”
Regardless of a Republican or Democratic head, the government follows the policy preferences of major lobbying or business groups rather than policy preferences of the general population.
Ferguson’s research on the political power of the rich is no outlier, either. A major study by
Princeton scholar Martin Gilens and Northwestern University professor
Benjamin Page reveals that the vast majority of the population — 70
percent on the lower end of the wealth and income scale — is essentially
excluded from policy decisions and effectively unrepresented. They
conclude that as you move up the scale, influence gradually increases.
More importantly, when you reach the very top of the scale, these
affluent groups essentially determine policy.
-- Rajiko Kolundzic, "Biden’s Victory Was Hardly a Win for 'Democracy.' It Was Another Win for the 1%. " (BLACK AGENDA REPORT).