Ownership of the Movement's Struggle

As we professionalize message and tighten advocacy branding do we actually kill the adaption of advocacy arguments and campaign messages? Is it possible that the stronger the "brand" of advocacy the more participants fell like that it is the message is not thier (ownership) but the message of the group or speaker (distant not owned). As we play with the intellectual property of movement is saving rivers American River's?, saving forest "greenpeace's"?. National parks "NPCA's"?, etc.

Are we taking so much ownership of messages to attrack membership into a brand (failing model of engagement) that we are wrestling participation and individual ownership of basic ideas from ownership of the many? The follwing quote raises interesting variables in the ownership of music, art, an agenda, or argument.

His conclusion is substantially the same as Cory Doctorow’s, but he appeals to our shared cultural heritage by saying that the act of experiencing a work of art—a song, a book—is the act of appropriating it, of making it part of our lives. Of reacting to it, sharing it, drawing the wrong conclusions from it. He argues that by tightening down on these secondary uses, we kill the mechanism by which culture is created.

This is a great question for our campaigns and advocacy efforts. How are our campaigns and tactics fostering the experience of political engagement? How are we helping many millions of people making the struggle for justice, clean air and clean water their struggle? Are we letting our arguments, facts , research, brochures, photos and data be a part of the participants experience or are we moving increasingly toward engagements in civic debates that are branded experiences?

Was Howard Dean only fun while he was an underdog because people owned his arguments...general disappointment with mainstream Democrats, anti-war, and open anger against bush. Is it possible that the more he branded the less he became "of the people"? What about other movements?