It doesn't seem to me that Doug's specific example (Hilary Clinton and health care) or his general criticism (contributors follow electoral trends) point to flaws in Ferguson's model.
First, I think there are significant sectors of corporate interests who realize the need for some kind of national health policy reform, and hope to gain benefit from it by influencing Clinton. This is an empirical question for which I don't have evidence for but might be shown upon research. Second, a question: Wouldn't Ferguson's model predict that corporate and elite donors would respond to social movements, cultural trends and electoral shifts, etc., in the same way (and for the same reasons) advertising agencies respond to such movements, trends, and shifts? In other words, the money is going to a good advertising facade, not so that the product can be changed, but only so it can be re-labeled as "new and improved." In other words, in most cases, it is the label that changes.
I am putting this very simplistically. There are other complications. One would expect that a truly well organized social movement could simply change some of the ground rules in a way that could undermine certain sectors of the party system and that corporate elites would try to find ways of co-opting or destroying those social movements. etc.
I will have to wait until I have actually read his book, but I think that if Doug's criticism is empirically correct, it can be accommodated by (what I have read of) Ferguson's general model.
Doug, you mentioned above that you have read some more recent articles of Ferguson's. Do you happen to remember what, articles and where?
Jerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060713/2d09c9db/attachment.htm>