It only becomes hard power when they lean on that influence coercively.
Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. It was late when I posted before, and maybe I didn’t explain what I was saying clearly, but money, and the control of money, is absolutely used coersively. Whether it be “do as I say, or I stop funding you and fund your opponent instead”, or supporting vanity projects (where the funding is likely syphoned off to the politician, or used by them to buy favour with others) on the condition that the politician behaves in a specific way, the control is coersive and has clear detrimental consequences for the politician should they not do as they are told.
I very much doubt that there is any ambiguity in the threats, much like you’re illustration with China actively threatening to remove their shipping, as you would not want any risk of misunderstanding when those levels of money and power are on the table.
Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. It was late when I posted before, and maybe I didn’t explain what I was saying clearly, but money, and the control of money, is absolutely used coersively. Whether it be “do as I say, or I stop funding you and fund your opponent instead”, or supporting vanity projects (where the funding is likely syphoned off to the politician, or used by them to buy favour with others) on the condition that the politician behaves in a specific way, the control is coersive and has clear detrimental consequences for the politician should they not do as they are told.
I very much doubt that there is any ambiguity in the threats, much like you’re illustration with China actively threatening to remove their shipping, as you would not want any risk of misunderstanding when those levels of money and power are on the table.