StingingVelvet: It's a Representative Republic, and those reps can be heavily influenced by money. This is nothing new. As said earlier by others though, grass-roots campaigns and well-meaning interest groups can influence as well, as does responsibility before a free media.
Straight democracies don't work, basing everything on majority rule. How long would civil rights have taken if it was straight majority rule?
I agree, I'm not necessarily extolling the virtues of 100% democracy, which I believe to be massively overrated anyway, but the extent to which money influences representatives in America is massively disturbing. It's this that makes it a plutocracy. A plutocracy in its own right would not be a bad thing, if it could be established that everyone has the same opportunities to make money and if wealth were only earned by fair and honest work, being proportional to integrity and honesty. Sadly, they're not.
Civil rights have always come about by way of prominent civil disobedience (Rosa Parks anyone?), but such civil disobedience brings with it the risk of civil war, and America is probably the one western country teetering closest on the edge of civil war with its profound ideological divisions in society. In America, civil rights have only ever won out against religious and traditional interests, never against financial interests.
SimonG: honestly, Europeans have to get off their high horse. Especially considering the democratic deficit of the EU.
I never claimed that Europe was any better.