Think Specter's Switch to the Democrats Means Anything? You Need to Understand Our One-Party/Two-Head System

Think about it: our system allows for legalized bribery. Every
politician is pro-corporate because that's where the overwhelming
majority of their campaign contributions come from. To keep those
contributions flowing (which allows them to keep getting re-elected)
politicians will do anything these corporate donors ask. Does it
really matter if one of them takes money from Coke instead of Pepsi?
Or barters favors with agribusinesses instead of the oil industry?
What happened to government for the people, by the people?

What's worse is that some companies and industries will give to both
parties to make sure that whomever wins, they'll have influence.

Back on April 13, 2009 Noam
Chomsky was on Democracy Now and he addressed this issue this
way:You can learn a lot from campaign contributions. In
fact, one of the best predictors of policy around is Thomas Ferguson’s
investment theory of politics, as he calls it—very outstanding
political economist—which essentially—I mean, to say it in a sentence,
he describes elections as occasions in which groups of investors
coalesce and invest to control the state. And he takes a look at the
formation of campaign contributors, and it gives you a surprisingly
good prediction of what policies are going to be. It goes back a
century, New Deal and so on. So, yeah, it can predict pretty well what
Obama is going to do. There’s nothing surprising about this. It’s the
norm in what’s called political democracy.

I know I'm quoting the infamous Noam Chomsky, but he's quoting Thomas
Ferguson and who cares as long as what they're both saying is
accurate?

Sure, there may be some slight ripples, but ultimately, the problems
with our system will still be there no matter which side of the aisle
Specter iss sitting on. Our system is built on corruption. Is it any
less corrupt because companies you like get their way?