KAz3G:
A successful candidate needs to have a suite of policies, not a single interest approach. They also need to present as acceptable to a broad spectrum of voters.
As much as I love flying, the "public" is generally not so interested. They are interested in summer fire fighting resources, in access for the aerial ambulance or RFDS, in the flow of visitors to their towns. I fear most of them won't like the thought that "safety" is being downgraded and that's what the other side will argue.
With respect Kaz, you just don't get it!
We don't have to convince the public about the need for aviation reform, we have to convince politicians that they might lose their seat if they don't reform aviation regulation!
This is not semantics. Your model is : convince the public = they will vote for a reformist = reformist gets elected = CASA gets reformed. As you and I and everyone else knows this is an impossible task.
My model is : convince public not to vote for politician = politician is afraid of losing seat = CASA is reformed very fast. The negative message is very easy to sell. We don't have to try and explain aviation safety to Joe public (an impossible task). A frightened politician is an active reformer!
The negative message only needs to be peripherally connected to aviation; "Senator Bloggs is up to his knees in prostitutes while aviation suffers" will do quite nicely. There is no need for complex messages, simple mud slinging will do.
My only quibble with AOPA's approach is that there is no point targeting the Minister unless his seat is marginal, all you will do is irritate him a little. It would be far better in my opinion if AOPA were to announce it will campaign against sitting Government members in the Five most marginal seats in the country (note: I did not say stand candidates, I said 'campaign against"). If you do that, or threaten to do it, Malcolm Turnbull will have McCormack by the throat ordering instant reform on Monday morning.