It's a conservative cause the same way that tightening IP laws and bank bailouts are a liberal cause - something politicians do regardless of what their voters want. I hang around a few conservative forums, and have seen zero (literal zero, not hyperbole) child labor advocacy.
It's possible some exists, the way that any cause will have some proponents, but not nearly enough to be the reason laws are getting changed, especially while other far more strongly championed causes get ignored. It's corporations buying laws, and (in this case conservative) voters getting the blame.
Both of the parties in America are deeply coopted by moneyed interests; we explicitly allow rich people to bribe politicians. That being said, the republicans, and the right wing in general, are typically gonna be the guys getting money from rich people because they push for policies that benefit them. I don’t necessarily blame a moderate conservative for voting for a politician that pushes to remove child labor laws because they were given a bunch of money. I do wish, however, that they’d look at the broader tendencies by their party towards such things and take them into consideration when they decide to vote for them, not just brush it under the rug.
> bank bailouts are a liberal
The savings and loan crisis, Great Recession bailouts, and Covid bailouts all occurred under Republicans administrations.
Are the liberal bank bailouts hiding in the bushes?
Ah, the notorious liberal Henry Paulson.
The copyright extension act was championed by totally liberal Orrin Hatch and Newt Gingrich. https://variety.com/1998/biz/news/speaker-support-1117477915...
It was named after lifelong republican Sonny Bono and support was so great that it passed with unanimous consent in the republican majority senate and by voice vote in the republican majority house.
And proposals to curtail child labor laws are being made today, right now, at this very moment by famously liberal Florida: https://www.floridapolicy.org/posts/fast-facts-hb-1225-and-s...
You're actually going to make me defend the statement "politicians don't perfectly represent the will of their voters" because I chose a few bad examples? Fine.
Clinton signed the DMCA, and it passed the senate unanimously - does that mean both liberal and conservatives agree that bypassing DRM should be criminal?
The Obama administration vetoed a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements on land illegally occupied by Israel - does that mean liberals support those settlements?
Leaving the US, Trudeau promised to reform Canada's first-past-the-post system that leads to two-party politics, but reneged on his promise - does that mean Canada's liberals are now against e.g. proportional representation? Despite voting on the promise of such?
In the UK, the Tory part oversaw the largest immigration in history, despite campaigning on reducing it [1]. Does that mean UK conservatives are pro-mass-immigration?
Mind you in all these cases, I am asking about the opinions of voters, not politicians. So I don't know why you're citing that Florida law - is there some vast grassroots movement behind it, or is it as I said - corporations buying legislation, and voter getting the blame? Well, the voters you don't like - when it's voters you do like, it's "oh dear the corrupting influence of money in politics, whatever will we do?", isn't it?
[1] U.K. Sets an Immigration Record That the Tories Could Do Without; The governing Conservative Party has long promised to reduce arrivals. It said Brexit would help. But the numbers in 2022 were the highest ever. - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/23/world/europe/uk-migration...
If the politicians do something and then are reelected by their constituents, yes, that means explicitly and without question that those constituents condone those actions.
My goalposts never move.
Ever.
Condone, or tolerate? Voters don't have infinite choices (in first-past-the-post systems like those of the UK, US, or Canada, they mostly have only two), and are forced to compromise. If you think that compromise means agreement, well, then your thinking is so alien to me I don't think I can convince you of anything.