[Joachim]

This pre-Trump study shows that ordinary people have little or no influence on their nominal representatives, as demonstrated by the policies they enact, and shows by implication who the real clients of the politicians are--and it's not the people who elect them. (This article was no doubt discussed and linked previously, but I could not find it in a title-related search.)

The conclusions are no surprise to anyone paying general attention to US government, but the article provides an empirical background for explaining Trump's appeal to ordinary voters: He simply stepped into the yawning gap between what the people want and what the people's (nominal) representatives pursue. (A gap big enough march an insurgent political campaign through.)

Many Biden voters were persuaded to see Trump as evil and oppressive. But removing Trump ended (at least temporarily) a significant ongoing opportunity for implementation of at least some policies favored by ordinary voters--and consolidated the power of economic elites and special interests to continue to oppress the will of ordinary people.

[Joachim]

Figure 1 shows the effects of policies preferences of average citizens vs economic elites and "interest groups":

[nicollo]

(strongly favored policies in our data set that failed include proposed cuts in taxes...)

It's called rent-seeking.

Entrenched interests, as this article points out, seek narrow advantage and have no interest in general advantage, especially when it may increase competition to them.

The Founders didn't use the term "rent seeking," but they were sensitive to it (see Franklin, Madison). They probably should have paid more attention to it, however.