1) Susan Collins is right. Threatening to fund her opponent if she doesn't vote a certain way is arguably a kind of bribery. 2) Is her objection that this money comes from many people, rather than one rich person, corporation, or PAC? Because that's the only difference I can seehttps://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1039633354268835840 …
-
-
I think there are fundamental differences. A pledge to donate to her opponent rather than a withholding of donations the candidate themselves. Also essentially a quantified indication of resolve of those opposed (though where should be exclsively her constituents it’s nationwide)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Bribe is nearly never advertised like the Collins case. If she strongly feels that it’s a bribe, why doesn’t she call fbi or other law enforcement authorities? Simple answer is she got cornered and ‘bribe’ accusation is the only thing she cane up with.



Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Collins isn’t being offered money. The money would go to opponent if Collins voted for Kavanaugh. If Collins votes NO, then money goes back to donors. That’s hardball, but it’s not a bribe.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
, except the number of people funding the bribe?
(Yes, that’s recently indicted Rep. Chris Collins, no relation)