The issue isn't how the payment is characterized. The issue is how the quid pro quo is characterized. Not to mention the simple fact that access is proportion

The issue isn't how the payment is characterized. The issue is how the quid pro quo is characterized. Not to mention the simple fact that access is proportional to influence, and money is proportional to access. But since those proportional relationships don't come with a money-back guarantee, or a tax-deductible receipt, they don't really look like the narrow definition of payment that the courts would be interested in.