The goal here is presumably to create a news story, and raise awareness. So why not send books to journalists instead? If I'm a journalist, which do you think will have a larger effect on me: seeing some anonymous people online say they're sending copies of 1984 to congresspeople (who will quietly throw them out, presumably), or receiving several copies of 1984 myself?
Good point. I can answer it, hopefully with good points of my own, since I'm the guy who created the Flood Washington with 1984 campaign earlier this evening.
Several reasons:
- Elected officials have a direct vote. "These programs are subject to congressional oversight and congressional re-authorization and congressional debate." — President Obama on June 7.
- If the campaign is successful, journalists will hear about it in a way that makes it more interesting to report on. If I'm a journalist, I want to write about a grass-roots campaign to change Washington--not a campaign to--what, change journalism?
- I'm upset with elected officials such as my own Dianne Feinstein who are publicly defending the program. I have no beef with journalists.
- It didn't even occur to me to send the book to journalists.
P.S. You are correct about the goal, but there is a further goal you did not mention: to change the law. The best way to do this: change the minds of lawmakers.
Elected officials respond to political pressure, but 100,000 books to officials from across the country do not represent significant political pressure by themselves. They could become political pressure if they turn into a news story, and more people hear about it; but if elected officials are the ones receiving the books, they have a high level of control over how much attention the story receives, and since they don't want to be subjected to pressure, it's against their best interest to publicize it.
Of course, you can create your own publicity to some degree, and I do agree that elected officials are the ones who need to fix this, which makes them a good target in many ways.
