I have no evidence for this, but I think it's highly likely they're using "ignorance" as a form of brinkmanship or plausible deniability. If these senators speak with any of their colleagues, they'll know the risk and reward tradeoffs of these decisions, but they'll choose to side with interests that benefit their own person.
I know Hanlon's razor stands against me, but I just find the dynamics of a highly connected set of professionals in DC too conducive to passive knowledge of these issues to justify a bunch of "key senators" to be fully ignorant on these subjects. I find it way more likely that ignorance is a convenient narrative to push their agenda without accountability from the opposition.
Plausible deniability yes, but even just safety. If I don't engage with a topic in a detailed manner, it's very unlikely I'll say something wrong about it, that could later come back to haunt me. Remember "the internet is a series of tubes"? The guy was hammered for trying to understand a complex topic - and he wasn't even dramatically wrong, just used a metaphor (almost certainly thought-up by someone in his staff) that was just excessively reductionist.
The media playing gotcha has made it fundamentally dangerous for a politician to be publicly wrong on any topic. The reaction is to avoid engaging with complex issues.
I know Hanlon's razor stands against me, but I just find the dynamics of a highly connected set of professionals in DC too conducive to passive knowledge of these issues to justify a bunch of "key senators" to be fully ignorant on these subjects. I find it way more likely that ignorance is a convenient narrative to push their agenda without accountability from the opposition.