From what I gathered from the article and the linked post on cnet. He was hired for side A and sided with A. Now he was hired for side B and sided with B. Am I missing something?
His posting to CNET is worth reading too: http://news.cnet.com/8618-31921_3-57404804.html?assetTypeId=...
In other words, he saw the bigger picture and (surprisingly!) realized that flawed legislation isn't the way to handle the situation as a whole.