ABSTRACT
Chapter 7 explores the concept of dual representation across Common Cause’s history. Dual representation is theoretical argument that what is represented comes before who is represented. The chapter focuses on the interaction between Common Cause leaders who claim to “act-for” citizens and supporters who accept these claims. It advances scholarly arguments about the directional flow of representation between dyads, building on Hanna Fenichel Pitkin’s seminal work on the concept of representation. Evidence suggests a two-way correspondence between what leaders say they represent and what members want the organization to represent. However, the dyadic relationship is complicated by the need to appeal to foundations, major donors, activists, and individuated activists. In 1984, Andrew S. McFarland found evidence supporting the exchange theory of democracy in organizational processes. Existential crises forced the suspension of these representational processes. However, with Common Cause’s adoption of Web 2.0 digital strategies, there is evidence of passive democratic feedback and organizational listening.
