They may plan on getting paid off by moving into jobs from those companies they support.
In that case it may require legal methods to enforce their duty as representatives of the people. Making accepting a job or speaking fees even if in the future as equivalent to bribery and defrauding the oath of public trust.
But I think that group is only a very few, since it requires a knowledge of wrong action.
Looking up some thoughts on Bribery, I found this article, maybe it is interesting. Since it requires a fee to read (or I could not figure out the linking in it) I could only read the first page, so guess people without money have to just wing it.
On the control of crime and Bribery. (wonder what it says)
http://www.jstor.org/pss/724145And since no governmental legal laws are in effect, since Bush set aside the system of laws and the constitution, since his anarchy is still the rules in effect. The next article was of interest.
Private Enforcement of Law
http://www.jstor.org/pss/724100However I do not advocate the principle of moving justice into private hands, if a point occurs where social contract is not held up by public government, then such enforcement logically is in the hands of anyone that wishes to pursue it. But again I only could read first page, so again have to wing it.
So here is my thoughts on it.
Something about how some in government support rule by private groups, not public ones to run everything, makes me think that enforcement of justice could be done by any private group within their view of how society should be. If they believe everything should be private, and their view is that money defines power, because they think that money is most important, then any person that thinks anything is most important could use that as a claim to have the authority to be a private enforcer of justice.
If a guy thought, toothpicks were most important(I of coarse do not think toothpicks are most important) but if someone did, then if that person had the most tootpicks, then just like people that think money is most important, that person with the tooth picks would have the same unfettered claim to power as many with money currently claim, and would under the sytsem the people of money believe in, be able to enforce justice within the same rules set up by people that think money is most important.
So anyone that thinks what they have is most important, by the rules of those that follow money, that person has the same claim to power as people with money, and by extention the rights to enact justice in any form that person sees fit. Leading to many forms of private justice to fill the void left by the turning of government into anarchy by Bush.
Interesting concept.