3 ms·
It's not quite that clear cut. In this case, Rep. Goodlatte probably considered how vocal opposition of the bill by large corporations could cast him as 'Anti-B
by chadwickthebold 13y ago
It's not quite that clear cut. In this case, Rep. Goodlatte probably considered how vocal opposition of the bill by large corporations could cast him as 'Anti-Business' by his constituency, or a challenger in an upcoming election. There is no mention in the article that IBM, Microsoft, or any other company offered to contribute to Goodlatte's campaign fund or support him in any other way in exchange for the removal of the CBM provisions.
While American politics is often seen as pay-to-play, especially after the 'Citizens United' decision by the Supreme court, it's important to differentiate situations where there is almost-direct financial ties from situations where it is more a question of political pressure. If some people (i.e. the tech-consuming public) elected to pressure our representatives more than large companies, this bill could have turned out very differently.
- logfromblammo 13y agoThe difference between the threat to cut off your campaign support directly and the threat to support a challenger in your next primary is a rather fine hair to split. Political pressure in the US always boils down to two things: money and media support. And those two are almost freely convertible, provided that you are completely milquetoast and unthreatening to the status quo.