I hope people remember this in the future when they talk about the rich controlling our government and the population being just along for the ride.
You may not be able to bend the will of state officials, but if you can bend the will of national-level companies this easily, "the Feds" are effectively a much larger operation than it otherwise would be.
The US was envisioned to look a lot more like the EU. The US Civil War required a stronger federal response, and unfortunately reconstruction failed to sufficiently address the primary economic differences in industrialization, resulting in deep geographical divides.
Further propaganda machines set up by one party due to embarrassment over Nixon's resignation has resulted in one effective party; the other is primarily controlled by corporations.
Which is also quite often legistrature dysfunction.
Their whole system is not really geared towards a fair election. Gerrymandering, millions of dollars in political donations, optional voting and you don’t need to give time to employees to vote, voting system specifically designed to maintain a duopoly.
Definitely instructive, but I think also important is how it recharacterizes the past. We should not assume that "kissing the ring" is new starting with this administration. Instead, it's probably fairer to conclude that rich successful tech companies will almost always adopt whatever stance they think will be most to their benefit. It's generally safer to presume that their actions are based on exigency rather than deeply held beliefs.
Going forward they'll have a good deal of say in the policies they care about, by donating and attending and show of loyalty.
Yes, most Trump voters are not nearly as wealthy as him (or the other executives kissing the ring), but when taxes are lowered and government services are cut due to the reduced budget, they're the ones losing more than the rich compared to a higher progressive tax rate. If the theory you're trying to disprove is that the government couldn't possibly be caused to enact policies that benefit the rich to the expense of everyone else, the fact that someone is elected by a large number of non-wealthy people doesn't demonstrate anything that would make your argument more convincing.
But anyway, agreed.