If Unity 08, Common Cause, Public Citizen, and others, pooled their resources we might achieve the critical mass of money and support to get some of reforms passed into law.

Paul, I agree with you. And I don't want you to take this the wrong way but….

Isn't that a pretty staggering statement? That if we could only raise enough money (and support, though obviously our level of support will be judged by how much money we've raised) we could get good legislation passed.

I'm pretty sure that's not how the founding fathers envisioned it.

In the end it becomes as scheme that as a small business owner I find ingenious.

Give to my campaign so I can represent your interests in Congress/Senate/White House.

Great! We got it done and I’m in office. Now what were you’re interests again? At this point we can either donate for the upcoming election or perhaps there’s a certain “fixer” on K Street we need to talk to.

The Senate and House move slowly as we all know. But as a member of the House, I have to run every two years. Hint….

No one in the loop stands to gain from logical lobby reform and the First Amendment makes it difficult to begin with.

And on it goes…..

But… just to play a little devil's advocate:

What about a little competition among advocacy groups/NGOs. Arguably they have to compete to be more efficient with supporters funds, get better results, and better connect to their supporters in order to continue their own existence. Wouldn't this lead to better advocacy.

Obviously there are problems with this—does the “advocacy market” really function like a free and fair market? Would it produce desirable outcomes?

I don't know, but it is an interesting point.