Buying political influence is generally a high ROI activity. In absolute terms, it may appear expensive, but in terms of "value" its quite cheap.
More importantly, there are other ways to gain political influence outside the DC money flow. The fight against SOPA and PIPA are an example of that.
As for the idea that differences need to be hashed out so a united front can be presented before trying to influence US politics. Even if such an outcome were desirable or possible (I'm not convinced of either), it would be a mistake to wait.
I think, underneath it all, part of the strategy is to create a legislative and regulatory environment that imposes disproportionate costs on upstarts and small players. In such environments, entrenched players can defend their positions.
More importantly, there are other ways to gain political influence outside the DC money flow. The fight against SOPA and PIPA are an example of that.
As for the idea that differences need to be hashed out so a united front can be presented before trying to influence US politics. Even if such an outcome were desirable or possible (I'm not convinced of either), it would be a mistake to wait.
I think, underneath it all, part of the strategy is to create a legislative and regulatory environment that imposes disproportionate costs on upstarts and small players. In such environments, entrenched players can defend their positions.