I have my cynical moments far more often than I'd like, but your credit rating is a moot point in this context. Staffers will check to see if you are a regular correspondent and how often you vote. They understand that word of mouth is still an important 'marketing' channel.

The spooks are hopefully irrelevant, and the Secret Service would only come into play if you were writing to the president. 

I try to do my homework, it's just the the choices are typically so darned poor and the information is so darned slanted.

We share the same universe, but I'm tired to the bone with broad-brush rants, sweeping generalizations, and excessive wallowing in anger. I never said a thing to imply that there is no problem with the role that campaign finance plays in our system--Citizens United v. FEC is possibly the worst Supreme Court decision handed down in my lifetime. I've long wanted Buckley v. Valeo overturned and public financing established for campaigns at all levels of gov't. We shouldn't have to suffer Mad Ave technology during campaign season. The people who profit from broadcast licenses and local cable monopolies owe the public a generous chunk of air time for solo talking-head presentations from candidates and actual debates among candidates (not the current mode of cross-talking, scripted sound-byte fests). 

What I'm truly sick of hearing is absolute rejection of both the possibility and reality of democratically elected leaders who are dedicated to public service and not simply self-serving opportunists. This toxic rhetorical environment is not new, but it got a Titan IV-sized boost back when Saint Reagan villainously claimed that "government is the problem." Things will not get better until enough folks get over their favorite rants and get back to the messy, difficult, never-quite-satisfying work of forging compromises between competing interests in civil society.