No. I am not. I am just saying that they weren't the defining factor in the decision back then, and they don't seem to be the deciding factor in the decision now (but that might come down to bias in which segment of "the people" I hear from the most).

I am saying that powerful interest groups can, occasionally, half-by-accident, represent the best interests of the powerless. We probably shouldn't rely on them to do so, and it is not the ideal state of affairs, but it can happen.

I think it was either this study [1] or another more recently that discussed how the only times our democracy/republic represents average people's interests is when those interests align with those of more powerful groups. Virtually every time they did not align, the government did not support the average person's interests.

Thus, furthering lazaroclapp's point that sometimes there are special interests (the church, companies, nobles/rich people) that are aligned with average people. That is beneficial for society, but it in no way is a solution to the problem. We need to actually restructure our government so it is not an oligopoly.

[1] http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...