You do realise that you're essentially agreeing with the comment you're replying to, since your argument is that it's the staff of politicians who are knowledgeable and not the politicians themselves?

His implication is that it was drafted by lobbyists, because "how else would a Senator hear about Bitcoin?" My point was that staff are very knowledgeable about these things, so I wouldn't assume it was lobbyists.

I'm pretty sure his staff understand this well enough to appraise the senator of who stands on which side of this issue. But that hard-working and intelligent staff isn't there to get in the way of a position backed by lobbyists and donations. They are there to make it work for the senator and minimize risk.