I have a collection of blue pens stamped with "World Jewish Congress." They come in the mail every few months in a fund-raising letter from the WJC, urging that I use the pen to sign one petition or another — protesting European anti-Semitism, for example, or urging hate-crimes legislation. I've never heard of these petitions actually being delivered anywhere, let alone changing anyone's mind, but I get a pen out of it. It's a crappy pen, but hey.

I ‘m guessing that is how most American Jews relate to Jewish defense groups, even ones with names, like "Congress," that hint at a deep connection between the leaders and the followers. We write a check to an organization that seems to represent our values, maybe scan the newsletter they send us in return. A few of us might get a little more involved — attend a fund-raiser, serve the organization's local chapter.

In general, however, we've come to accept that the real power in these organizations belongs to the wealthy supporters and the Jewish "professionals" who do their bidding or earn their favor. And we can only hope, and sometimes pray, that these groups represent us in a way that's effective, ethical, and creditable. And if they don't — well, there are plenty of Jewish organizations out there, and one of them is bound to do a better job, or at least a less bad one.

The, shall we say, limitations of this relationship have received an ugly public airing in recent months, as the WJC nearly sank under the weight of financial shenanigans that eventually engulfed its longtime benefactor, billionaire Edgar Bronfman. Bronfman's successor, fellow billionaire Ronald Lauder, was elected as WJC's interim president in Bronfman's place, joined by Bronfman's son Matthew as his second in command. It's the Jewish organizational version of Bewitched— they've switched Darrens and hope the audience won't notice.

The name "World Jewish Congress" is a vestige of a time when organizations did at least try to reflect a sense of the grassroots. There were members, not contributors, and there were mechanisms in place to reflect the sense of the membership. Today, many Jewish organizations treat Jews as mere "prospects" with whom they communicate in a series of alarmist fund-raising letters.

The last decade has seen the rise of the "mega-donor" — rich and powerful men (they're almost always men) who grew impatient with the consensus-building and "process" sought by a previous generation of moneyed donors. Like Bronfman, they've run their philanthropies like their businesses, crafting Jewish organizations over which they could assert similar control.

And no doubt they have had their successes. Bronfman's single-minded pursuit of Holocaust reparations was pivotal in winning billions of dollars in compensation for victims and wringing contrition from European governments. Lauder has put his stamp on emerging Jewish institutions throughout Eastern Europe and saved the Jewish National Fund from years of decline. Michael Steinhardt variously bypassed and bullied the federation system into helping create birthright israel, which offers free trips to Israel for young and under-affiliated Jews. The mega-donors injected energy — and cash — into a creaky philanthropic apparatus and ignited innovation.

And yet at a time when individual Jews are least engaged with organizational Jewish life, Jewish organizations seem least engaged with individual Jews.

Organizations have created a paternalistic culture in which the "grassroots" feels it has less voice, and choice, than ever. The apathy goes both ways. Just as mega-donors have little contact with the grassroots, the grassroots would be hard-pressed to name those who purport to be its leaders. (Try it — ask a friend to name a national Jewish leader. Alan Dershowitz doesn't count.) Jewish organizational life is something that gets played out in board rooms in New York and Jerusalem. Their proceedings are dutifully reported by the Forward and JTA, in articles that are read mostly by a tight circle of activists and masochists.

And somehow, the smaller this circle gets, the smaller becomes the Jewish agenda. The country is currently embroiled in fierce debates over Iraq, immigration, and health care. Only a few Jewish organizations, like the Reform movement's Religious Action Center, remain active and vocal in these affairs. For the most part, the Jewish leadership focuses on three things: defending Israel, fighting anti-Semitism, and— oh, wait, that's just two things.

Some people are trying to change this — currently a coalition of organizations and bloggers have launched an on-line petition to get presidential candidates to pay more attention to the concerns of American Jews on domestic issues. The nearly 9,000 people who voted picked health care, the environment, education, and civil rights as their major concerns. But don't expect the petition to go very far, even though the sponsors include truly grassroots efforts like Jews United for Justice, Hazon, the National Council of Jewish Women, and the Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring. Web-based activism by emerging organizations has sparked a revolution in the rest of the political world, but there are simply too few Jews — on-line or not — for it to make much of a difference in the communal sphere. Money talks, and the biggest organizations continue to do most of the talking.

But they had better be careful. Unless they figure out a way to truly engage the grassroots, to open the conversation beyond conference tables ringed with millionaires and billionaires, they just might end up talking to themselves.