Politico ran an article today that discusses the difficulties Democratic congressional candidates will have in abiding by the ban on accepting money from PACs and lobbyists implemented by Sen. Obama and the DNC.    In fact, the DCCC and the DSCC both say the probably *won't* stop accepting handouts.

Specifically, the lobbyists whine, candidates can't raise money any other way - and the Dems want to win, right?

Before I go any further, I just want to point out two things that I find to be hilarious about the article:

1) Most of the quotes came from disgruntled lobbyists - not too many candidates want to speak out against Obama just now.
2) Although these same lobbyists resent the fact that Obama's edict has painted candidates who do accept their donations as "scumbags" they don't deny the fact that their donations come with big fat strings and are effectively tainted.

Now back to the point:  when I first read this article, I got a little worried that if too many candidates protest the DNC's policy that it won't take and Obama will look like he can't control his own party. 

But I'm wondering if this Congressional and Senatorial temper tantrum only serves to reinforce his point while providing him cover from the Republicans.

Here's why grassroots fundraising has worked for Obama:  he introduced himself to his constituency (both the one he has and the one he wants).

Obama was able to build a lot of national excitement for his presidential campaign primarily from the base he had been cultivating in Illinois for a number of years.

For example, way back after his first session in the Senate, Obama went on a statewide town hall tour where he reported back to Illinois on what was happening in Washington and asked us what we needed him to know about our towns, cities, counties, etc.  I attended one of these town halls and he showed up with our local state legislators.  I had never laid eyes on any of these guys before, but there they were, participating in what was a remarkably interesting, localized conversation.   Together they showed us how our concerns were impacted by events in Washington and Springfield and vice versa.  It was amazing to watch.

Since then, I see these legislators around town and they seem more like people who are approachable, who listen and who represent us well - so when they ask for funding for re-election I happily cut a small check.  And there are many others here who will do the same.

Until this year I have never donated to single campaign and now I try to help our good representatives as much as I can - and I have to admit, if I hadn't met them this wouldn't be the case.

I think the policy Obama and the DNC are trying to enforce proves a really valuable point:  our elected leaders and their constituencies do not know each other.    Maybe if our leaders are forced to be beholden to us for support, WE will get the attention and quid pro quo that is currently reserved for lobbyists and PACS.

Further, I think it proves another point:  campaigns waste a ridiculous amount of  money.  If candidates are forced to rely only on what they can raise from citizen donors maybe they'll spend more wisely and rely on more direct, inexpensive (electronic and face to face) forms of communication with their constituencies. 

Can you imagine a campaign where you actually get to meet and talk to the candidates who want to represent you?  I get faint at the very thought! 

Of course, this will work mainly for incumbents, but even the DCCC could use Obama's grassroots strategy (and infrastructure) to raise excitement and hopefully cash for Democratic challengers.

Also, I know there are a TON of down ticket races going on right now, but it would be nice to see Obama showing support for candidates who reject PAC and lobbyist funds by showing up at an event for them (like a parent using reward teaching).

And, I think it's great to see lobbyists get angry as their influence flees like guests at a skunk picnic.

In the meantime, while the party debates this out, they get some cover because until Republicans reject lobby and PAC donations they can't use this issue against Dems - they'd look like the raging, corrupt hypocrites they are!

Anyway, I feel like this is an excellent exercise bringing government back to the people, but I'm curious to hear if others see holes in this (admittedly idealistic) logic.

[and don't forget to click recommend, please]