So Apple has a track record of unilaterally making poor or wholly irrational decisions about what's allowed to be on their store and what isn't, and you decide that because the one example case being used is a vaguely shady app, obviously the politicians are just bought off by bribes and they're going after Apple because they have friends in high places?

You don't think that it's VAGUELY possible that perhaps Apple exerting their influence to silence speech (in the forms of games, comics, books, etc) and other forms of expression, not to mention outright crushing businesses because they decide they don't like them or because they decide they don't want competition, has upset politicians? You don't think it's VAGUELY possible that perhaps it is actually illegal?

Yeah, sure. Bribery. Got it. Most logical explanation!

P.S. I don't know why you would choose Viagra spam as a point of comparison for an app that people chose to install on their phones. Yes, AppGratis was scummy SEO, almost certainly - but Apple was OK with it being on their store, and approved updates, up until days before it was pulled, and they continue to allow similar apps to operate on their store. They also allow stuff on their store that is BLATANTLY exploitative (IAP-laden games aimed at kids, for example).