I personally think it's the only bit that makes this article worth reading.

Instead of fantasizing a creative, insightful and genius solution, it shows a glimpse of how the real business world works.

Kind of like those "small boy sells limonade so his bed-ridden father can buy artificially expensive treatment" articles that are meant to showcase community, but actually show the heartlessness of insurance and medical for-profit companies?

Pretending horrible bastards aren't 'lobbying' isn't going to fix the problem.

The one-word problem here could be 'lobbyists' or 'lawmakers' or 'bribery' or 'exploitation'. It could even be just as the article said: 'relationships'... But it sure isn't this article, written after the fact, with no hint of actually condoning said behavior other than failing to pass moral judgment.

If you think about it some more, you might be glad that the author reminded us about this. Our lawmakers sell us out to fossil fuels, big banks, corporate media, telecomms, polluters, etc, and then tell us it's raining.

All the while, normal well adjusted people, don’t want to get “political” but wealthy special interests are happy to “open dialogs” and “find common ground” with elected officials we elect once every two years.

Democracy is hard. If participation is limited to voting in an election, the public interest will be ignored.

Being able to participate more with money disproportionately benefits the rich.

> Being able to participate more with money disproportionately benefits the rich.

Fully true. The public is relegated to - at best - a veto vote on corruption, which they rarely use (and are rarely informed as to why they should. Thanks press!).