This well-researched opinion piece offers plenty of factual evidence to back its point that both Obama and McCain are now accepting large contributions from the same big donors, whom the author fears are already starting to influence their policies. While I question the fairness of this article, it certainly raises important questions about issues like campaign finance and the increasing role that big money plays in politics, regardless of the candidate's rethoric.

Cold reality articles are always discomforting. What's most discomforting about this article is its implied message: "forget getting your country back, it ain't ever gonna happen." Eight years of the incompetent Bush/Cheney dynamic duo handing over America to special interests has permanently altered the nature of democracy, the economy, costs of necessities, the middle class, jobs, and our rights. Real Americans are going to be screwed, no matter who grabs the gold ring. I never thought I'd live to see the decline and fall of America. But here it is.

This story is so shrill that it lacks credence. It is limited to and makes conclusions based on which person financially supports each presidential candidate. One political fact ignored is that money follows a winner. Some of these donors give to both sides. This story would be more balanced if it compared large donors to total donors.

The article raises most serious questions of whether we will have a democracy or a government of, by, and for the rich. Taibbi is perhaps correct in that this is how the system is, but brings in no opinions of how to fix the system The avenue of publicly financed elections has potential to reduce the problem. Taibbi mentions the effective neutering of the federal elections commission, implying that needs to be repaired eventually, even if it is too late for being effective in this election. He does not formulate the problem that anybody who runs for president and fails to pimp for big dollars will lose the election, given the other candidate successfully pimps for big dollars. Here, Darwin favors pimps for president.

This is a great article and should be required reading for the idealist hopefuls (such as myself) and the supporters of each candidate. Mr. Tiaibbi's final line says it all (unfortunately): "It's the same old story: Money talks, and bullshit walks. And don't be surprised if we're the ones still walking after November."

Of course, technically, just because candidates get big money from certain corporations doesn't mean their votes will be skewed that way. But past track records in this regards are damning, as this article documents. And Obama's minions need to be aware of this so that they don't allow their idolatrous support to be taken for granted.

I don't see the point of "fuck" and "shit" among other curse words that the author uses. Corporations can't give political contributions and individuals are limited to levels so low that no individual's contributions are that important. I don't see why corporations and moneyed people shouldn't have a voice. We can only hope that they influence Obama who has a tax plan that would be a disaster for the economy. If Obama lowers the corporate rate to 25% to be competitive with most other countries he will cancel it out by raising the tax on dividends. Capitalism depends on money - corporations or rich people and it can't function w/o them. The idea that we would have better government if people were limited to $10 or some small ... More »

The single weakness in this piece is that it "sounds" one-sided. Surely there must be other possible explanations for some of the seemingly outrageous ways in which both candidates have screwed the public for the sake of the corporations. This article should explore those -- however weak those explanations may be -- to show us that other explanations were explored. That said, I consider this a "must-read" if you want to understand just how closely both candidates are tied to corporate money. This article also effectively quashes the myth/spin that Obama's campaign is being financed by small donors. The one point with which I disagreed with the author is in the claim that it would be "tragic if the real legacy of (Obama's) ... More »