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