I have often wondered whether our elected representatives really believe the things they say. Some seem, to me anyway, so implausible, so divorced from common sense, that my initial conclusion was that they must have been persuaded to adopt the views of the interest groups who paid for, and will be paying their campaign expenses. This made me uncomfortable, since it suggests a weakness of will, a lack of spine and integrity, of honor and commitment, values that seem increasingly rare.
There is however an alternative, slightly less depressing explanation. Given a very large number of heterogeneous candidates, those whose views most closely correspond to the largest funding sources will be elected. This model doesn't require that elected representatives adopt the views of their funders, merely that they are selected as "most fit", in a Darwinian sense, to the political environment and the resources it makes available.
Of course, the net result is the same. Electoral issues are defined by campaign donors and the views of those who we elect represent a Sophie's choice between the interests of two sets of opposing funding groups.
I imagine, not quite what the framers of the constitution had in mind.
