Just sharing something from the "Economist" I found interesting. The money political candidates receive may be more telling than their party affiliations on how they stand on the issues. If you want to prevent bills from passing, you only need to control the Senate. You have fewer congressmen to influence and you need only one branch of congress to prevent a bill from passing.
There are only 100 Senators but there are 435 members in the House of Representatives. This is the defensive approach financial institutions use to prevent bills from passing that would regulate their industry. I bet there is more and more sophisticated corruption among Senators than among those in the House of Representatives since Senators are a more attractive target for influence peddling.
Bankers get rich, they hardly ever go to jail for their transgressions because they have the money that Senators need, and we suffer. Look here for their most recent transgression. It's a little harder to get a bill passed than stopping a bill from passing. You only need one branch of congress to stop a bill while you need both branches to pass a bill. The problem is we voters don't have lobbyists to represent us after we vote our Senators into congress.
How do we mitigate the power of influence that money affords? That's what we have to figure out if our government is to function as a fair representative democracy. Strangely, labor unions are probably best aligned with the interests of most Americans. However, moneyed special interest groups and their lobbyists, largely from the banking industry, have maligned organized labor in most hard working Americans' minds causing them to vote against their own interests. Americans deserve a fair transparent government that protects the interests of the people by ensuring justice and fairness for all. We need to solve the money problem before the bankers and financial industry destroy us all.
Who Owns Congress? A Campaign Cash Seating Chart | Mother Jones