Martin Gilens

Reports on a survey experiment showing that messages about reducing reliance on jails and prisons are more effective when they talk about both racial and economic inequality together rather than just one or the other. Also finds that how people react to these messages depends on their own racial identity, feelings about race, and personal experience with the criminal legal system, suggesting that the way these issues are framed matters for building support for anti-carceral policies.

Reports on a real-world experiment where intensive, in-depth conversations were used to see if people could be persuaded to support reducing reliance on jails and prisons. Found that these deep canvassing talks did increase support for anti-carceral policies in the short term (about a week afterward), suggesting this method can shift views on criminal justice, though the effects faded over time.

Argues that the primary reason that policymakers in the U.S. cater to the preferences and interests of the well-to-do is the outsize role of money in American politics.

Discusses four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism— that offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.

Examines the disproportionate influence of affluent Americans over government policy, showing that the ability of the well-off to influence political decision-making has grown over time, but that impending elections and strong partisan competition in Congress can help produce policies that are more broadly responsive to the public as a whole.

Reports the core findings of the Affluence & Influence project.

Finds that newspapers owned by corporations that stood to gain most from this landmark legislation provided much more positive coverage of the legislation and neglected critical concerns that were contained in coverage by other newspapers.

Explores the racialization of poverty in America, and role of the media in perpetuating stereotypes of African Americans as the “undeserving poor.” Also shows that news coverage of poverty during hard times is both more sympathetic to the poor and less likely portray the poor as black.