I think this is the wrong direction:
Companies caught in the Democrats' cross hairs, such as oil and drug firms, are hiring Democratic lobbyists, but they're holding on to their Republican lobbyists. They reason that they will need to persuade Republican lawmakers to block bills they dislike in the Senate, where 60 out of 100 votes are required to pass anything of consequence. Democrats hold only a 51 to 49 majority.
In addition, in a move that is raising ethical questions, some Democratic lobbyists are planning to take congressional staff jobs, attracted by the chance to wield real clout.
There seems to be a bit of confusion here. When people listed "corruption" as the number one issue influencing their vote this year, some have interpreted it to mean that they simply wanted the Democrats to take over K Street, suck down all the lobbying money that used to go to the GOP and take the words "conflict of interest" to new heights. I don't know how this got mis-translated into Washington-ese, but I think the linguistic gap betwen DC and the rest of the country is growing rather pronounced.
Sirota thinks this is not so much Democrats vs. Republicans as the Money Party vs. the People Party. I think this distinction might be apt.