I do not find it useful to describe a single voter as being THE vote that causes something to pass or fail. Presumably, the other 50 or so senators that voted against had similar motivations as Sinema, so why would I assume she was “bought and paid for” any more than the others were?

Because the issue at hand is the carried interest loophole, and she is the person responsible for that surviving in this bill. The other 49 Senators and the Vice President were all on board with removing the loophole, and Sinema said she would vote against the bill unless the loophole was preserved.

So in this case, in this timeline, with the information we have, Senator Sinema is in fact the reason this bill passed--since she was the last to come on board--and her motivation was clear.

That is the art of politics. She said it, so the others do not have to, and in exchange she will be owed something else from the others.

I bet if the vote was singularly for legislation about carried interest taxation, the votes would have been the same way (given their historical voting patterns).

I would be more persuaded if carried interest was not already a contentious issue that Repubs have had plenty of opportunity to change themselves. The fact that they did not indicated it is not just Sinema who is against removing the carried interest loophole.

>She said it, so the others do not have to, and in exchange she will be owed something else from the others.

That's possible. But it's also possible that she was the only one paid well enough to die on that hill and the rest of them would have passed the bill without it just so they have something to campaign on for the midterms.

Yes, that is also a possibility.