"How would U.S. voters react to a Senator claiming that a given piece of legislation (say, one reducing restrictions on campaign financing) “strikes a fundamental balance between the needs of the Senate and those of the United States of America”?
In my minds eye, I saw Joe Lieberman giving a press conference: "The health-care bill now strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of Joe Lieberman and those of the United States of America".
Well, that actually seems more reasonable than the ACM situation. I expect Lieberman, as an individual, to have interests that are not the same as his constituents'. (He may be derelict in his duty as a Senator if he puts his own interests above those of his constituents, but that's a discussion for another day.) But there's no reasonable expectation, in my mind, that Lieberman's interests as an individual and my interests as a voter are going to be the same.
Likewise, I wouldn't expect the interests of one of the ACM's directors -- as individuals -- to be the same as the ACM's membership. (I'd want them to set aside their personal interests while acting in their official capacity within the organization, but that's different from saying that their personal interests don't exist.) But I would expect the ACM as an organization to reflect the interests of the membership.
When an organization that supposedly exists for the benefit of its membership starts doing things that are almost certainly out of line with the best interests of the membership, it's a good sign that the organization has been subverted and is being used for some other purpose (e.g. simple self-perpetuation).
I like the Lieberman joke, but the original metaphor isn't quite right; there's definitely a difference between (on the one hand) the relationship between the ACM as an organization and its members, and (on the other hand) the US Senate and the citizens it represents.
It's very possible for an organization to have interests that are not identical with the interests of its constituent members.
"How would U.S. voters react to a Senator claiming that a given piece of legislation (say, one reducing restrictions on campaign financing) “strikes a fundamental balance between the needs of the Senate and those of the United States of America”?
In my minds eye, I saw Joe Lieberman giving a press conference: "The health-care bill now strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of Joe Lieberman and those of the United States of America".