I just wish the article had been clear about that. Instead it just rambled for several paragraph, and replaced the threat with a vague statement about how you'd "hold them accountable", which could mean a dozen things.

Also, I concur with the GP except that I agree this is a use of game theory, but only in the trivial sense that any offer of reward to those you like (as used by other PACs) is game theory.

I still don't see how this is game theory. This just seems like a classic carrot-and-stick approach.

What if I tell two prisoners:

"If one of you informs on the other, he'll get off with a 1 year sentence, and the other goes to prison for 10 years. If neither informs, you both go to prison for 5 years."

Does that sound like game theory, or just carrot-and-stick?

Here are other examples of game theory in real-life. I'd say we're in the same category:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Real-life_...