The political marketers, or the “professionals” as they are often called – the advertisers, spin doctors, pollsters, strategists, and especially career political consultants – are totemic figures of modern political communication. Their existence at the top tables of political power is both symbol and proof of a transformed politics. They are the agents and evidence of what is sometimes described as “politics lost” or “colonized” by media and marketing logics (Street, 2005; Wring, 2004; Meyer, 2002; Wernick, 1991; Finlayson, 2003). They are commonly considered both an effect and cause of a depoliticized, nonideological, strategy-dominated politics (Kirchheimer, 1966; Panebianco, 1988; Franklin, 1994; Klein, 2006). They are cited as both effect and cause of the decline of long-standing parties, an all but ubiquitous trend among Western democracies (Manin, 1997; Sabato, 1981; Pharr and Putnam, 2000; Diamond and Gunther, 2001). Their methods and influence have spread beyond the electoral realm into all manner of interest groups, with the effect that issue publics are reduced to target audiences for strategic communication (Bennett and Manheim, 2001). Outside their own ranks there are few defenders of these professionals and their activities, and scarcely any who claim they could somehow improve politics by making it more vibrant, responsive, and accessible. At best, they are necessary functionaries in the complex and competitive world of modern political communication; at worst, they are catalysts of a reduction of politics to shallow and cynical power games.