For those that have a hard time comprehending this - companies like Apple make hardware and also sell services. All this bill is doing is saying there has to be a modicum of separation between the two. It's not saying they can't offer their service, it's just saying they have to give other services an equal opportunity. Not sure what's so bad about that.
What is so bad how it works in practice:
The primary strength of an iPhone is how ALL the pieces work together creating "The Whole is greater than the sum of its parts". Disrupting that by giving Google Chrome equal billing with Safari undermines the quality of the iPhone (which goes far beyond its mere hardware).
For those that have a hard time comprehending this - companies like Apple make hardware and also sell services. All this bill is doing is saying there has to be a modicum of separation between the two. It's not saying they can't offer their service, it's just saying they have to give other services an equal opportunity. Not sure what's so bad about that.
It's not hard to comprehend, but still begs the question, Why?
Why is it Apple's (or anyone else's) responsibility to allow equal access to their platform?
It's up to others to build a better mousetrap.
That said, Apple already offers other competing services. I can also get Music apps from Amazon, SiriusXM, Spotify, iHeart and several others.
In addition, I can easily get video content apps from Netflix, Amazon, Disney+, Paramount, Peacock and many more.
It's up to all of them to promote their worth and value to consumers, not Apple.
It’s called a monopoly. The government has a long history of antitrust regulation, and the consumer benefits of strong competition are well known. (This isn’t just about Apple, either.)
It’s hard for another company to prove their worth and value if they never have a chance.
Antitrust was established here 100+ years ago to bust up organizations like Standard Oil -- which was actively and successfully suppressing competition to the detriment of the American people. But, back a couple decades ago it got expanded to benefit fly-by-nights like MCI -- which meant breaking apart one of our premier organizations: AT&T. Today that trend keeps expanding into the belief that "Big is Bad". That's not what Anti-Trust was designed or meant for.
For those that have a hard time comprehending this - companies like Apple make hardware and also sell services. All this bill is doing is saying there has to be a modicum of separation between the two. It's not saying they can't offer their service, it's just saying they have to give other services an equal opportunity. Not sure what's so bad about that.
Why is "a modicum of separation " - which arbitrarily puts a cut line into a legal and successful business model - an objective delineation? If anything, Apple has shown a very high degree of HW/SW/SVCS integration, which creates the enhanced experience that has made so many people so pleased to invest in their ecosystem. And its an integration that creates their market differentiation.
And really, how many users are complaining about the current model? No one, relative to the size of their installed base.
Having said that, the Apple eco-system generates untold hundreds of billions in revenues for third-party companies across the globe as it now stands, so let's not make it seems like there isn't a lot of jam already being spread on a lot of slices of bread.
Again, should Nordstroms have to promote Macy's as an alternative retailer? Or, if they choose to promote their house brands in primary positions on their floors or online results (over third party brands), should they be restricted from doing so?
Any finally, looking at the app store, Apple often promotes third party brands in categories that they also offer applications (video editing, music for example)
The government needs to stop breaking things that work.
One thing that I believe SHOULD be implemented: if Apple has a service like Apple Music that DOES NOT pay the Apple tax, why should competitor Spotify have to pay the Apple tax? As things stand now, any software or service category that Apple enters has an unfair advantage over competitors. Ideally, product categories Apple competes in should NOT charge the competition a commission on Apple's platforms.
Apple already paid the "tax" to access their own iDevice customers. Apple have spent Billions in RD to develop iOS and Billions more providing iDevice customers with free up upgrades and updates. A new iDevice owner can count on at least 3 iOS upgrades and often more if their hardware can handle it. And usually at least another 3 years of security updates on the iOS their iDevice are stuck on. Not to mention the Billions they spend on RD for iDevices, in order to attract customers to their platform and ecosystem.
What did developers like Spotify paid to develop, upgrade and maintain the OS that they are placing their free app on, in order profit from Apple iDevice customers? iDevice customers that Apple has spent Billions to attract and keep. (Besides paying for the developer account. Which itself is a bargain.) Remember, Apple only charge Spotify the "Apple tax" on Spotify subscribers that chooses to pay for their subscription using their iTunes account in IOS. And Spotify has stop providing a way for new subscribers to pay with iTunes, in their free app. So with the old Spotify subscribers that still can pay with iTunes, its only a 15% commission by now.
When I shop at my local Luckys, their own brand of sodas (Sunnyside) are on the same shelf as Pepsi and Coca Cola. Sunnyside sodas are usually advertised at 30% to 50% less than Pepsi and Coca Cola. When either Pepsi or Coca Cola goes on sale, so do Sunnyside sodas. From a consumer standpoint, is there anything wrong with Luckys promoting their own brand of soda, to the customers they spent advertising money on, to shop in their store? Can Pepsi and Coca Cola set up their own check out stand inside a Luckys or direct Luckys customers to pay for their Pepsi or Coca Cola purchase outside in the parking lot, to avoid paying to have their soda on Luckys shelf? How unfair it must be that Pepsi and Coca Cola do not have their own stores?
When I search for "battery" on Amazon, Amazon own brand of batteries comes up on top of the search, along with Energizer, Duracell and ACDelco. Amazon batteries usually sell for a few dollars less and are rated just as good as any name brand batteries. Of course Amazon is not paying the "Amazon tax" on the sale of their own brand. From a consumer standpoint, do you see anything wrong with Amazon promoting their own brand to the customers Amazon attract to shop there?.
Costco place their own Kirkland brand of batteries right next to the Duracell brand they also sell. Nearly every Costco customers knows that Kirkland batteries are made by Duracell. From a consumer standpoint, anything wrong with Costco promoting their own brand of batteries to their member paying customers?
BTW- Spotify has become the largest subscription music streaming service by piggybacking on the IP of Apple and Google and yet they complain about how unfair the Apple and Google tax is or was. (And it's only 15% now, since it been over a year since they stopped offering in app payment using iTunes or Google Pay, to new subscribers.) Spotify don't care about leveling the playing field, they want some form of affirmative action because they think its unfair that they do not own their own platform and thus is entitled to make a profit using other companies platforms, for free. It's not surprising that Spotify, along with Epic, are two of the biggest company behind "Coalition for App Fairness". As far as I'm (and many here) are concern, if Spotify no longer allows iOS Spotify subscribers to pay with iTunes, Apple can promote their Apple Music as much as they want on the platform they own and paid for.
How does anybody claim with a straight face that something like this that will obviously help consumers could possibly 'hurt consumers'?
Oh, right. Bribery.
What bribery do you think has happened?
I believe the official term is “Campaign Contribution “.
No, the official term is "lobbying".
All one has to do is to google ........ "Klobuchar and Coalition of App Fairness" to see how bribery works.
I found some articles about how Klobucher is taking up the issues that the coalition has put forward, but nothing suggesting anything untoward that amounts to bribery. Please help.
At a Senate committee on Big Tech, Sen. Amy Klobuchar pushed back against claims that her legislation to bar companies from self-preferencing their own platforms will hurt consumers.
U.S. Capitol Building
Back in October, Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Chuck Grassley introduced the bipartisan "American Innovative and Choice Online Act." The proposed bill would limit the ability for major tech companies to feature and prefer its own services over those of rivals.
"It's just that our laws haven't caught up to a major, major part of our economy. And my view has always been that competition is good for innovation," she said. "We've heard a lot of claims that somehow doing something is going to undermine the tech companies, but in fact, they are doing just fine and what we want to make sure is we continue to foster competition."
Despite the defense of the new bill, the committee hearing on Thursday focused on algorithms -- and, more specifically, how social media platforms design their algorithms to drive user engagement.
This isn't the first time that Klobuchar has taken aim at Big Tech. Earlier in 2021, for example, she introduced new legislation that could bolster antitrust regulators with additional power.
She also heads up the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights.
How does anybody claim with a straight face that something like this that will obviously help consumers could possibly 'hurt consumers'?
Oh, right. Bribery.
What bribery do you think has happened?
I believe the official term is “Campaign Contribution “.
No, the official term is "lobbying".
All one has to do is to google ........ "Klobuchar and Coalition of App Fairness" to see how bribery works.
I found some articles about how Klobucher is taking up the issues that the coalition has put forward, but nothing suggesting anything untoward that amounts to bribery. Please help.
Some how trying to imply that Apple, Google and other big Techs spending lobbying money to defeat bills against Big Tech is "bribery" and the Coalition of App Fairness spending lobbying money to help introduce and/or support bills against Big Tech is not, shows a compete lack of understanding how US politics works and the politicians involve. The money the Coalition of App Fairness spend on lobbying for their cause is no different than that spent by the tobacco, oil, pharmaceutical and even tech companies. Don't think for second that the Coalition of App Fairness is spending money lobbying for the rights of the consumers. Nearly all lobbying money made up of for profit entities, goes toward looking after themselves and their profits. The Coalition of App Fairness referring themselves as "non-profit", is a joke.
How does anybody claim with a straight face that something like this that will obviously help consumers could possibly 'hurt consumers'?
Oh, right. Bribery.
What bribery do you think has happened?
I believe the official term is “Campaign Contribution “.
No, the official term is "lobbying".
All one has to do is to google ........ "Klobuchar and Coalition of App Fairness" to see how bribery works.
I found some articles about how Klobucher is taking up the issues that the coalition has put forward, but nothing suggesting anything untoward that amounts to bribery. Please help.
Some how trying to imply that Apple, Google and other big Techs spending lobbying money to defeat bills against Big Tech is "bribery" and the Coalition of App Fairness spending lobbying money to help introduce and/or support bills against Big Tech is not, shows a compete lack of understanding how US politics works and the politicians involve. The money the Coalition of App Fairness spend on lobbying for their cause is no different than that spent by the tobacco, oil, pharmaceutical and even tech companies. Don't think for second that the Coalition of App Fairness is spending money lobbying for the rights of the consumers. Nearly all lobbying money made up of for profit entities, goes toward looking after themselves and their profits. The Coalition of App Fairness referring themselves as "non-profit", is a joke.
Lobbying has always been with us -- and should be. It's where special interests get to present their case and their side of the story to legislatures. But, it now goes far beyond that with campaign contributions, money promoting or attacking the politician's policies as well as media coverage that promotes or attacks a candidate or his policies.
It goes beyond bribery to buying whichever politician one wants. Some though do manage to stay above all that and do as well as they can (within those limits) to do what is right for the country. But, even then, they know not to run afoul of say, BigPharma or Faux and Friends & Hannity.
Until campaign finance and the (social) media are cleaned up we will not be a country "Of the people, by the people and for the people". Well funded special interests will be (mostly) driving the boat -- both in federal elections as well as (increasingly) state and local elections. And, for the past decade vote rigging through things like gerrymandering, and voter suppression insure that only the "right" voters get a say.
But, who's going to clean it up? The bought and paid for politicians? It will be up to us to "keep this republic -- if we can". We are the last bastion of democracy. But that's where social media comes in.... partitioning off the people into closed cells and groups, poisoning their minds and radicalizing them with unsubstantiated, one sided propaganda.
The result is: radicalized citizens electing radicalized politicians whose goal is to support the agenda(s) that got them elected rather than the best interests of their country.
How does anybody claim with a straight face that something like this that will obviously help consumers could possibly 'hurt consumers'?
Oh, right. Bribery.
What bribery do you think has happened?
I believe the official term is “Campaign Contribution “.
No, the official term is "lobbying".
All one has to do is to google ........ "Klobuchar and Coalition of App Fairness" to see how bribery works.
I found some articles about how Klobucher is taking up the issues that the coalition has put forward, but nothing suggesting anything untoward that amounts to bribery. Please help.
Some how trying to imply that Apple, Google and other big Techs spending lobbying money to defeat bills against Big Tech is "bribery" and the Coalition of App Fairness spending lobbying money to help introduce and/or support bills against Big Tech is not, shows a compete lack of understanding how US politics works and the politicians involve. The money the Coalition of App Fairness spend on lobbying for their cause is no different than that spent by the tobacco, oil, pharmaceutical and even tech companies. Don't think for second that the Coalition of App Fairness is spending money lobbying for the rights of the consumers. Nearly all lobbying money made up of for profit entities, goes toward looking after themselves and their profits. The Coalition of App Fairness referring themselves as "non-profit", is a joke.
I'm not seeing anything about Klobuchar in there, and I'm not sure who you think implied what you say has been implied.
How does anybody claim with a straight face that something like this that will obviously help consumers could possibly 'hurt consumers'?
Oh, right. Bribery.
What bribery do you think has happened?
I believe the official term is “Campaign Contribution “.
No, the official term is "lobbying".
All one has to do is to google ........ "Klobuchar and Coalition of App Fairness" to see how bribery works.
I found some articles about how Klobucher is taking up the issues that the coalition has put forward, but nothing suggesting anything untoward that amounts to bribery. Please help.
Some how trying to imply that Apple, Google and other big Techs spending lobbying money to defeat bills against Big Tech is "bribery" and the Coalition of App Fairness spending lobbying money to help introduce and/or support bills against Big Tech is not, shows a compete lack of understanding how US politics works and the politicians involve. The money the Coalition of App Fairness spend on lobbying for their cause is no different than that spent by the tobacco, oil, pharmaceutical and even tech companies. Don't think for second that the Coalition of App Fairness is spending money lobbying for the rights of the consumers. Nearly all lobbying money made up of for profit entities, goes toward looking after themselves and their profits. The Coalition of App Fairness referring themselves as "non-profit", is a joke.
I'm not seeing anything about Klobuchar in there, and I'm not sure who you think implied what you say has been implied.
>How does anybody claim with a straight face that something like this that will obviously help consumers could possibly 'hurt consumers'?
Oh, right. Bribery.<
Darkvader in his original post was the one implying that politicians speaking against this bill are being "bribed" by Big Tech money in the form of campaign contributions or lobbying money . I assumed Darkvader did not mean politicians were illegally being offered money, to speak against this bill. Thus Klobuchar and other politicians also receiving lobbying support from the Coalition for App Fairness can also be implied as accepting "bribes". Politicians accepting large campaign contributions and lobbying money from the Coalition of App Fairness is no different than politicians accepting the same from Big Tech firms.
Both the Coalition for App Fairness and Big Tech are trying to "buy" support for their cause. Offering bribes would be illegal but offering campaign contribution and lobbying money are not (when done right.). But here in the US, if a politician voted a certain way and it was later found out that this politicians had receive a large campaign contribution or lobbying money from the entity that benefitted from the way he/she voted, the people that didn't like how he/she voted will tend to implied that the politician was "bribed". Just like what Darkvader did in his/her post.
Did you also research Darkvader claim the politicians speaking against this bill are being bribed, like he/she implied?
How does anybody claim with a straight face that something like this that will obviously help consumers could possibly 'hurt consumers'?
Oh, right. Bribery.
What bribery do you think has happened?
Since Citizens United (and even before) every U.S. politician has to accept bribes (urrr, I meant "campaign contributions") if they want to win and hold their seat. It's one of many things undermining our democracy.
The Citizens United decision didn’t relate to campaign contributions.
Did you also research Darkvader claim the politicians speaking against this bill are being bribed, like he/she implied?
Of course not. I don't have time to investigate every offhand comment a stranger on the internet tosses out. I asked darkvader to clarify and they didn't, so I assume it was just unsubstantiated partisan nonsense, which darkvader definitely has form for.
How does anybody claim with a straight face that something like this that will obviously help consumers could possibly 'hurt consumers'?
Oh, right. Bribery.
What bribery do you think has happened?
Since Citizens United (and even before) every U.S. politician has to accept bribes (urrr, I meant "campaign contributions") if they want to win and hold their seat. It's one of many things undermining our democracy.
The Citizens United decision didn’t relate to campaign contributions.
Theoretically. But, in reality, Citizens United enabled vast amounts of cash to be paid to politicians to insure their loyalty. It's one of multiple ways our democracy is being destroyed from within by effectively giving one group a bigger vote than another.
How does anybody claim with a straight face that something like this that will obviously help consumers could possibly 'hurt consumers'?
Oh, right. Bribery.
What bribery do you think has happened?
Since Citizens United (and even before) every U.S. politician has to accept bribes (urrr, I meant "campaign contributions") if they want to win and hold their seat. It's one of many things undermining our democracy.
The Citizens United decision didn’t relate to campaign contributions.
Theoretically. But, in reality, Citizens United enabled vast amounts of cash to be paid to politicians to insure their loyalty. It's one of multiple ways our democracy is being destroyed from within by effectively giving one group a bigger vote than another.
It restored to people the right to speak and to disseminate their speech, even when they do so through a corporate form. You don't lose your right to speak, even if you do so as employees of corporations or as owners of corporations or in association with others through corporations. We've generally not lost basic constitutional rights just because we exercise them in corporate contexts. The implications of us losing them in such contexts would be enormous, and I suspect most people would oppose such loss of rights if they really thought through those implications. (I don't want to get too far afield here so I won't explore them now; I'm not sure how far off subject Apple Insider would want us to go. I'm only commenting in response to the effects of Citizens United being brought up.)
But Citizens United didn't allow for any cash being paid to politicians. Corporations are still, e.g., strictly prohibited from contributing to political campaigns or committees. It only allowed for independent speech and, of course, for money to be spent to facilitate such independent speech. Without the right to spend money to facilitate our speech, our ability to speak could be severely limited. That's true with regard to most rights - the right itself necessarily encompasses the right to spend money to facilitate it.
That said, the reason people (or corporations) spending money to facilitate their own speech advocating for certain issues or politicians matters is because it can influence voters. So it's not that they have a bigger vote, it's that they might have more ability to influence other voters. They don't have a bigger vote, that's why they're left having to try to convince other voters to agree with what they want. It's still all about the actual voters; persuading them is the purpose of such speech.
How does anybody claim with a straight face that something like this that will obviously help consumers could possibly 'hurt consumers'?
Oh, right. Bribery.
What bribery do you think has happened?
Since Citizens United (and even before) every U.S. politician has to accept bribes (urrr, I meant "campaign contributions") if they want to win and hold their seat. It's one of many things undermining our democracy.
The Citizens United decision didn’t relate to campaign contributions.
Theoretically. But, in reality, Citizens United enabled vast amounts of cash to be paid to politicians to insure their loyalty. It's one of multiple ways our democracy is being destroyed from within by effectively giving one group a bigger vote than another.
It restored to people the right to speak and to disseminate their speech, even when they do so through a corporate form. You don't lose your right to speak, even if you do so as employees of corporations or as owners of corporations or in association with others through corporations. We've generally not lost basic constitutional rights just because we exercise them in corporate contexts. The implications of us losing them in such contexts would be enormous, and I suspect most people would oppose such loss of rights if they really thought through those implications. (I don't want to get too far afield here so I won't explore them now; I'm not sure how far off subject Apple Insider would want us to go. I'm only commenting in response to the effects of Citizens United being brought up.)
But Citizens United didn't allow for any cash being paid to politicians. Corporations are still, e.g., strictly prohibited from contributing to political campaigns or committees. It only allowed for independent speech and, of course, for money to be spent to facilitate such independent speech. Without the right to spend money to facilitate our speech, our ability to speak could be severely limited. That's true with regard to most rights - the right itself necessarily encompasses the right to spend money to facilitate it.
That said, the reason people (or corporations) spending money to facilitate their own speech advocating for certain issues or politicians matters is because it can influence voters. So it's not that they have a bigger vote, it's that they might have more ability to influence other voters. They don't have a bigger vote, that's why they're left having to try to convince other voters to agree with what they want. It's still all about the actual voters; persuading them is the purpose of such speech.
Oh yeh! I forgot! Corporations (and shadow organizations) are people and their voice counts more than that of actual people.
That's one of the reasons why our democracy is failing: Politicians can be bought, guaranteed a seat and radicalized to do the bidding of the minority. There are other reasons why its failing such as voter suppression and its close cousin gerrymandering. But that's one of the big ones.
Corporations should not have the rights of a living breathing citizen of the United States. This is the primary failing of citizens United. Corporation should not have the same rights of political speech as a living, breathing, voting citizen. No super citizens please.
Comments
Antitrust was established here 100+ years ago to bust up organizations like Standard Oil -- which was actively and successfully suppressing competition to the detriment of the American people. But, back a couple decades ago it got expanded to benefit fly-by-nights like MCI -- which meant breaking apart one of our premier organizations: AT&T. Today that trend keeps expanding into the belief that "Big is Bad". That's not what Anti-Trust was designed or meant for.
And really, how many users are complaining about the current model? No one, relative to the size of their installed base.
Having said that, the Apple eco-system generates untold hundreds of billions in revenues for third-party companies across the globe as it now stands, so let's not make it seems like there isn't a lot of jam already being spread on a lot of slices of bread.
Again, should Nordstroms have to promote Macy's as an alternative retailer? Or, if they choose to promote their house brands in primary positions on their floors or online results (over third party brands), should they be restricted from doing so?
Any finally, looking at the app store, Apple often promotes third party brands in categories that they also offer applications (video editing, music for example)
The government needs to stop breaking things that work.
What did developers like Spotify paid to develop, upgrade and maintain the OS that they are placing their free app on, in order profit from Apple iDevice customers? iDevice customers that Apple has spent Billions to attract and keep. (Besides paying for the developer account. Which itself is a bargain.) Remember, Apple only charge Spotify the "Apple tax" on Spotify subscribers that chooses to pay for their subscription using their iTunes account in IOS. And Spotify has stop providing a way for new subscribers to pay with iTunes, in their free app. So with the old Spotify subscribers that still can pay with iTunes, its only a 15% commission by now.
When I shop at my local Luckys, their own brand of sodas (Sunnyside) are on the same shelf as Pepsi and Coca Cola. Sunnyside sodas are usually advertised at 30% to 50% less than Pepsi and Coca Cola. When either Pepsi or Coca Cola goes on sale, so do Sunnyside sodas. From a consumer standpoint, is there anything wrong with Luckys promoting their own brand of soda, to the customers they spent advertising money on, to shop in their store? Can Pepsi and Coca Cola set up their own check out stand inside a Luckys or direct Luckys customers to pay for their Pepsi or Coca Cola purchase outside in the parking lot, to avoid paying to have their soda on Luckys shelf? How unfair it must be that Pepsi and Coca Cola do not have their own stores?
When I search for "battery" on Amazon, Amazon own brand of batteries comes up on top of the search, along with Energizer, Duracell and ACDelco. Amazon batteries usually sell for a few dollars less and are rated just as good as any name brand batteries. Of course Amazon is not paying the "Amazon tax" on the sale of their own brand. From a consumer standpoint, do you see anything wrong with Amazon promoting their own brand to the customers Amazon attract to shop there?.
Costco place their own Kirkland brand of batteries right next to the Duracell brand they also sell. Nearly every Costco customers knows that Kirkland batteries are made by Duracell. From a consumer standpoint, anything wrong with Costco promoting their own brand of batteries to their member paying customers?
BTW- Spotify has become the largest subscription music streaming service by piggybacking on the IP of Apple and Google and yet they complain about how unfair the Apple and Google tax is or was. (And it's only 15% now, since it been over a year since they stopped offering in app payment using iTunes or Google Pay, to new subscribers.) Spotify don't care about leveling the playing field, they want some form of affirmative action because they think its unfair that they do not own their own platform and thus is entitled to make a profit using other companies platforms, for free. It's not surprising that Spotify, along with Epic, are two of the biggest company behind "Coalition for App Fairness". As far as I'm (and many here) are concern, if Spotify no longer allows iOS Spotify subscribers to pay with iTunes, Apple can promote their Apple Music as much as they want on the platform they own and paid for.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1340371
Some how trying to imply that Apple, Google and other big Techs spending lobbying money to defeat bills against Big Tech is "bribery" and the Coalition of App Fairness spending lobbying money to help introduce and/or support bills against Big Tech is not, shows a compete lack of understanding how US politics works and the politicians involve. The money the Coalition of App Fairness spend on lobbying for their cause is no different than that spent by the tobacco, oil, pharmaceutical and even tech companies. Don't think for second that the Coalition of App Fairness is spending money lobbying for the rights of the consumers. Nearly all lobbying money made up of for profit entities, goes toward looking after themselves and their profits. The Coalition of App Fairness referring themselves as "non-profit", is a joke.
Darkvader in his original post was the one implying that politicians speaking against this bill are being "bribed" by Big Tech money in the form of campaign contributions or lobbying money . I assumed Darkvader did not mean politicians were illegally being offered money, to speak against this bill. Thus Klobuchar and other politicians also receiving lobbying support from the Coalition for App Fairness can also be implied as accepting "bribes". Politicians accepting large campaign contributions and lobbying money from the Coalition of App Fairness is no different than politicians accepting the same from Big Tech firms.
Both the Coalition for App Fairness and Big Tech are trying to "buy" support for their cause. Offering bribes would be illegal but offering campaign contribution and lobbying money are not (when done right.). But here in the US, if a politician voted a certain way and it was later found out that this politicians had receive a large campaign contribution or lobbying money from the entity that benefitted from the way he/she voted, the people that didn't like how he/she voted will tend to implied that the politician was "bribed". Just like what Darkvader did in his/her post.
Did you also research Darkvader claim the politicians speaking against this bill are being bribed, like he/she implied?
Theoretically. But, in reality, Citizens United enabled vast amounts of cash to be paid to politicians to insure their loyalty. It's one of multiple ways our democracy is being destroyed from within by effectively giving one group a bigger vote than another.
But Citizens United didn't allow for any cash being paid to politicians. Corporations are still, e.g., strictly prohibited from contributing to political campaigns or committees. It only allowed for independent speech and, of course, for money to be spent to facilitate such independent speech. Without the right to spend money to facilitate our speech, our ability to speak could be severely limited. That's true with regard to most rights - the right itself necessarily encompasses the right to spend money to facilitate it.
That said, the reason people (or corporations) spending money to facilitate their own speech advocating for certain issues or politicians matters is because it can influence voters. So it's not that they have a bigger vote, it's that they might have more ability to influence other voters. They don't have a bigger vote, that's why they're left having to try to convince other voters to agree with what they want. It's still all about the actual voters; persuading them is the purpose of such speech.