"Special interest groups" seem to always be defined as "any interest other than my own."
Politicians like the term because some people hear it and think "bankers" while other people hear it and think "gays and tree huggers."
On the other hand, this week, you had a special interest group achieving its goal by overwhelming support (more representative of a democracy). When someone talks negatively about special interest groups, it is because typically special interest groups have achieves their goals by disingenuous methods.
You mean like AARP?
> When someone talks negatively about special interest groups, it is because typically special interest groups have achieves their goals by disingenuous methods.
Some supporting evidence would be nice.
Here's a question - which side of the obamacare debate was "special interests"?
Hence the way to political power is to become part of a more powerful special interest coalition. (And by extension, the bigger and more powerful the coalition, the more right it has to speak for the general interest, as well.) In this case, I think the optimism of the Jan 18th actions is well placed. "Netizens" as a whole are extremely diverse, but there are definitely issues which can form a coalition, and it is absolutely crucial that this coalition be recognized as powerful, well-organized, possessed of deliberate and well-connected leadership, and deadly willing to play in heavy contact mode for its beliefs and priorities.
Does anyone remember when the NRA was one of the most feared special interest groups? It used to be that if a representative crossed them they would have a tough election fight next time. It seems like "the internet" should flex it's muscles and fight against Lamar Smith's re-election. Getting him kicked out would get some attention.