I bet it wouldn't phase them a bit. They would create a watchdog professional organization (see US Chamber of Commerce) that makes sure local elections and appointments are influenced just as effectively as federal ones.
This already happens in judge elections in many states. Certain "business-friendly" candidates are showered in campaign money, with the expectations that when certain cases are appealed those judges will end up making "the right choice".
It's easier for people to control their government at the local level, than at the national level. For instance, the city of Cambridge a year or so ago removed all the DHS cameras that were put up after 9/11. That wouldn't happen if they were controlled at the national level. Look at gay marriage or marijuana, only a problem at the national level - let the states do what they want; it's less of a chance of one group going in and ruining it for everyone. Sure, it's probably not optimal there will be some laggards, and perhaps even backward progress. But overall, the system will be more stable and allow the most amount of freedom for those who want it - being able to vote with your feet is much better than voting in an election.
> being able to vote with your feet is much better than voting in an election.
I've had this idea for a while already. Indeed, it would be interesting to set up a free market system for the governments. US seems to be an ideal place for this sort of experiment given the ease of movement. Competition between states could be quite healthy.
This already happens in judge elections in many states. Certain "business-friendly" candidates are showered in campaign money, with the expectations that when certain cases are appealed those judges will end up making "the right choice".