The alternative cynical view (which I subscribe to) is that this small-to-medium amount of pain can sometimes tip the scales in the right direction.
There are of course other tools, but they require a bit more dedication: regular donations to think tanks and lobbyists who agree with you and can spend time schmoozing/convincing congressmen, regular donations to legal foundations who challenge overreach in court, and of course voting when the time comes.
Well, you're not talking to a congressman. You're talking to an office aide. I'm not convinced causing "pain" for interns and aides is what transmutes into political change.
I’m still not understanding. How is my comment distrustful? It’s just a factual description of a decision making and PR process.
The tone I imagine when I say something like “legislators only consider the desires of plutocrats” is like saying “plants survive by photosynthesis” or “the Efficient Markets hypothesis is only useful as an occasional approximation” or something - neutral observations of factual descriptions of how systems work.
“Cynical” implies a normative judgment, or some extended assumption as if my comment has anything to do with presumed self-interest or distrust of sincerity.
There are of course other tools, but they require a bit more dedication: regular donations to think tanks and lobbyists who agree with you and can spend time schmoozing/convincing congressmen, regular donations to legal foundations who challenge overreach in court, and of course voting when the time comes.