[rayiner]

Sure, I’ll argue that. “Special interests” is just code for “people whose opinions I don’t like.” But at the end of the day, our government very closely reflects what you’d expect. If you account for the fact that likely voters skew richer, older, and more conservative than the population as a whole, what exactly do you think would be different if “special interests” were not in charge? Would we spend less on defense? 1 in 3 Americans say we don’t spend enough. Would we spend less on social security, more, etc?

[rectang]

For the quote of mine being referenced, I'm content with the dictionary.com definition of "special interest group":

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/special-interest-group

a body of persons, corporation, or industry that seeks or receives benefits or privileged treatment, especially through legislation.

[bryondowd]

Removing wealthy 'special interests would probably have some interesting effects. Off the top of my head, I expect we'd have better regulations on banks and the like. And perhaps Mickey Mouse (and everything else more than 75 years old) would be public domain.

[TooBrokeToBeg]

> “Special interests” is just code for “people whose opinions I don’t like.”

It's code for above-the-median-wealthy, enough to influence opinion outside of the populist opinion. Why you choose to go partisan over a systemic issue, is beyond me.

[tlb]

"Special interests" includes many powerful groups that aren't especially wealthy:

- religious groups wanting faith-based educational programs

- farmers wanting crop subsidies (hugely powerful in the US)

- internet users wanting net neutrality

- conservation groups wanting to preserve parks or endangered species

- unions wanting occupational safety regulations

- retirees wanting increased social security

You might even agree with some of these.

[theseatoms]

The common theme here is "concentrated benefits and diffuse costs".

[knieveltech]

The guilty flee where none pursueth. You'll note my original post was carefully non-partisan. Your rush to bring conservative talking points into the discussion suggests some kind of bias, or perhaps a guilty conscience.