Personally (though obviously Carol may disagree), I don't think that's necessarily the strategic takeaway from Carol's post. The value of electioneering vs. lobbying probably depends on the specifics of the districts and candidates.
When an EA-oriented candidate has stronger ties to the district, a more robust political history, deeper local political connections, etc? Sure, the monetary value of donating to that candidate probably exceeds lobbying. .
But at the end of the day, none of those factors were remotely there for Flynn.
As an aside, I grew up in OR-06 and still have a ton of connections there, and Carol's post is 100% spot-on. The only thing I'd add is that -- in the absence of clearly defining himself -- the fact he was backed by what appeared to be crypto did the defining for him. And in the context of a Dem primary, that's not a helpful association
Personally (though obviously Carol may disagree), I don't think that's necessarily the strategic takeaway from Carol's post. The value of electioneering vs. lobbying probably depends on the specifics of the districts and candidates.
When an EA-oriented candidate has stronger ties to the district, a more robust political history, deeper local political connections, etc? Sure, the monetary value of donating to that candidate probably exceeds lobbying. .
But at the end of the day, none of those factors were remotely there for Flynn.
As an aside, I grew up in OR-06 and still have a ton of connections there, and Carol's post is 100% spot-on. The only thing I'd add is that -- in the absence of clearly defining himself -- the fact he was backed by what appeared to be crypto did the defining for him. And in the context of a Dem primary, that's not a helpful association