Sorry, Bernard, but "the 2 core points" are simply an example of intellectual BS. You can prove almost anything under the sun if you cherry-pick your facts and rearrange them conveniently. The lefties seem to have this romantic notion of what politics is, and how the world works (or, rather, how it should work).
As I said earlier in the thread, politics is (mostly) a brutal game (war) of crude interests, not of noble ideals. This is how the world works (and not just in the US).
As for crowd-funding, proposed as a solution, isn't it exactly how Barack Obama won the first election? By getting an extraordinary number of less-than-$200 contributions? There are also numerous examples on city, state and national level of candidates who won in spite of being underfunded (compared to their rivals). Had this not been true, all elections would have been won simply by comparing the size of election coffers.
There are candidates who fell out of favor of both parties, ran as independent, and won (Senator Lieberman, for instance).
Probably most facts the guy used are correct, but the real question is: so what? It is just stating the obvious. The obvious being: that is how the world works - incentives and interests. It is a two-way street: those interests ("funders") are looking for candidates to represent them, not just the other way round. Those candidates who do not want to "sell" themselves to the big funders, can (and did, like Obama) ask for small donations from a larger number of funders.
In other words, nothing new here (nor exclusive to the U.S.), just another example of how Little Johnny (read: romantic lefties) imagines the world of grown-up politics should look like.
