"Maybe we need a netroots lobbying firm."The article goes on to note:
[We Already Know We Can Win Elections. Now How Do We Keep The Democrats' Attention After They Win?, Susie Madrak Friday Aug 07, 2009, C&L]
"According to the candidates, they don't owe us a damned thing. (We're not alone in getting this kind of treatment, by the way. Women's and LGBT PACs are also invisible - once the candidates have won with the help of their all-important early money.)Yes - the assumption that the 'netroots' candidates would feel some obligation to pursue 'transformational' policies was naive.
We, on the other hand, thought we were supporting transformational candidates, people who would at least give us equal standing with the voters back home, and feel free to ignore the corporate lobbyists, knowing we had their backs. It hasn't worked that way."
Particularly for House members, the campaign's the thing: the every-two-year cycle of elections pretty much necessitates raising campaign $$$ ALL THE TIME. If the $$$ come from well-heeled, industry-supported lobbyists, well - that's the way the game is played.
If the 'progressive' movement hopes to succeed - 'succeed' as in 'getting what we want' - we need to have a very large bank-account - not just during formal campaign seasons, but ALL THE TIME. It's not impossible, but it'll take some extraordinary organizational skills... just exactly the kind of skills that the diffuse, progressive netroots lack - we're in it for ideas & policies, not for politics!