So if her parents had a credit card, they wouldn't have groped her?
Of course. My point is that at the moment, "being an Alaska elected representative" doesn't exempt someone, so the (much lower bar of) "having a credit card" is not likely to exempt someone.
See below. You've already nailed it (nearly).
Yes, absolutely I object to the scanners and the gropes, especially as a primary measure. And the problem is that TSA doesn't screen everyone. They don't screen airport employees. They don't screen TSA staff. They don't screen (as rigorously) the pilots and FAs. (I'm not endorsing more screening for flight crews; see below.)

They screen all passengers at the same level, but I would argue that that level is too high. It's absurd to screen on the basis that Rep Cissna could have explosive fluids in her breast prosthesis or that the decorated veteran might have suddenly gone off the reservation, but assume that the guy who makes the milkshakes at McD's is okay because he's had a background check.

On the one hand, there have been numerous examples of TSA and airport employees stealing, assisting with drug trafficking, the airline employee who took his buddy's gun through for him, the TSA woman who boarded a flight as a passenger without screening. The background checks have not eliminated the "bad apples." On the other hand, despite these lapses, despite abysmal scores on Red Team tests, despite hundreds of unscreened people having access to the so-called "sterile" area, there are not planes raining from the heavens. And other countries manage without the scope and grope, again, without losing aircraft.

This says to me that (a) the background checks, including things like credit history, are basically meaningless in determining whether someone is a criminal or not, and (b) the current level of passenger screening is excessive.
One of the major failings with TSA policies has been the inability to consider which groups might be adversely affected by a new procedure. The liquids ban initially (and to some extent still) ignored medical needs and baby foods. The shoes-off policy ignored people who cannot remove their orthopedic shoes. The grope-up-your-leg policy ignores women who choose to wear skirts, including those who do so for cultural or religious reasons. The scanner policy overlooked the fact that some people cannot stand, some cannot stand still for 2 minutes, and some cannot stand with their hands over their heads. The policy of removing everything before going in the scanner ignored people with insulin pumps, ostomies or prostheses. The groups of people above may be a minority of the population. They may be a minority of the people who travel. But people in those groups are delayed, harassed, and embarrassed every time they have to go through a checkpoint. TSA's ill-thought-out procedures make these people second class citizens for the crime of surviving cancer, turning 90, or being a modest woman.

There are many honest people who either choose not to have a credit card or who are unable to get credit. A process that treats someone without a credit history as a terrorist will likewise single out these people every single time.
If you add random ETD to the above (say, every fifth passenger), I think that is significantly LESS offensive than the current policy while being at least as effective. The very minor risk of someone getting something through that is offset by the increased attention to these things instead of IDs, shoes, water bottles and groping. And oddly, if you add random ETD to your list, you have pretty much what the rest of the world does. @:-)