Nope, not that hard. If 49% are already for it, you only need to bribe 2%.
So you are saying there was never, ever a quid pro quo for a legal campaign contribution? It doesn’t have to be a bag full of unmarked bills tossed over the transom, you know. Legislation in return for campaign contributions is bribery.
Never. In fact, the Senator I worked for or the chief of staff never even told us who contributed to the Senator. The most effective lobbyist that I ever worked with was a Democrat (we were a Republican office). I don’t know if he ever contributed to my boss.
Did big contributors have more access to our office? I’m sure they did. I assume that certain folks gave a lot of money to the campaign or the GOP in general and they knew the Senator and the chief of staff on a first name basis and ate lunch with them, etc. So what?
I actually remember one time when my boss was fighting for a provision in a larger spending bill that went contrary to the interests of some large companies that contribute heavily to the GOP (and, I assume, their executives probably gave money to my boss). The chief of staff called me in to question me severely if the provision was really necessary, and when I told him it was in the best interest of our state, he said to do what was necessary to get it passed (we failed, however).
As hard as you may find this to believe, almost everyone who works on Capitol Hill is there in order to fight for legislation that will help their state or make the country better. They are not there to get rich (if you examine Congressional pay, you’ll see the truth of this statement). They are there because they believe in what they are doing.
Actually, I don’t think it is. Bribery is personal enrichment for a public act, and campaign contributions aren’t used for personal enrichment.
Regardless of what it’s called, that type of practice is certainly unethical. And I’ve only heard of a few cases where it happened (Ney, Cunningham, etc.). It is not a common practice at all.