It's not primarily a question of Congressional funding (although Joint Res 20 for $50 million passed in February, and the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill remains on the table). Most of
the Darfur-related bills moving through Congress right now pertain to divestment, targeted sanctions, and port-entry denial.
Group action through organizations like
Save Darfur and the
Genocide Intervention Network (which includes letter writing, as well as lobbying, divestment campaigns, demonstrations, support of relief agencies already in Sudan, and media outreach) is more effective. Of course other than domestic divestment campaigns, it's all indirect action; what's most needed is to get Sudan to agree to let in the planned joint UN-AU peacekeeping force of 20,000, which will only happen through continued UN and AU negotiations with Khartoum. Just last week they did agree to let in 3000 more AU troops (mostly military police) which is technically Phase I of the UN plan, and a significant concession. Meanwhile the US and the UK are now forcefully arguing with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for forcing a Security Council vote on much broader sanctions, including divestment and freezing of Sudanese government accounts abroad, a tighter arms embargo, and implementation of no-fly zones. Ban is concerned that the Sudanese government will become even more resistant to letting in more peacekeeping troops if the screws are tightened on them too quickly.
Intense public pressure from organizations like Save Darfur is very much behind the present renewed push for these efforts. That's not saying the present state of affairs is anything to celebrate, but it's absolutely untrue that those pressures have had no effect.
Unfortunately, it's a complicated matter diplomatically because there isn't international consensus on what needs to be done--no one is willing to intervene militarily on their own, though there have been a few calls for a NATO "Plan B", unlikely since NATO is currently preoccupied with Afghanistan; China (which has veto power over Security Council decisions) has extensive investments in Sudan and is balking at possibly losing those, though they have stepped up their own negotiations with Khartoum during the last couple weeks; and in some quarters the entire affair is viewed as an anti-Arab propaganda campaign of sorts by the US and the UK to create a pretext for overthrowing the Sudanese government. The situation is still a long ways from being as bad as Rwanda, but then that's sure as hell not saying much.
So, there's nothing any of us can do
directly--we can only apply collective pressure domestically for pressure in turn being notched up abroad. If you don't see even that much effort as worth your time, well, suit yourself, but I don't understand that at all.