And he's not alone. I've talked with plenty of people who view corporate lobbyists as a big problem (which they are), but who also view more government intervention as the solution. Basically, it boils down to a completely batty argument: "The super-rich are buying the government! So we need the government to stop them!"
As I've said before, as bluntly as I can, the belief in "authority" stems from a refusal to grow up. As kids, we had big people we could whine to, to try to get whatever we wanted. When we get older, some of us realize that real life isn't like that, but some of us still want a giant nanny who we can whine to, who will save the day, fix everything, and take care of us. They wish, as hard as they can, that some huge, powerful entity will be there, to fight for them, to be on their side, to make sure that everything turns out well--the good are rewarded, the wicked are punished, there is truth and justice, and we all live happily ever after.
If such a thing was possible--some magical, omnipotent force which would always make good prevail--I'd be as thrilled as anyone. But there isn't. And expecting "government" to be that all-knowing, all-caring, all-powerful savior and protector is just plain idiotic! It never has been, never will be, and never could be.
"But we need government to protect the little guy!" Okay, but why would it? Sure, you might want that, but why would you ever expect it to happen? Look at the authoritarian regimes that talked the most about helping the lower classes, about being for "the people," and being against "the rich." That was the sales pitch for the Soviet Union, Red China, Hitler's Germany, and many more--but what was the result? Why do such regimes always end up creating a super-rich, all-powerful ruling elite, which constantly stomps on, oppresses, robs, and often murders "the little guy"? The answer is nothing more than basic human nature and simple economics. If there is a throne to be bought, someone rich will buy it.
For example, lots of people complain (and rightly so) about the zillions of dollars the pharmaceutical companies and the AMA throw at politicians to buy their loyalty. You can call it "corruption," but you might as well just call it "government," since that's how it always works. The idea that things would ever happen any other way is absurd, and the idea that a giant authoritarian structure would ever be "for the little guy" is naive to the point of being insane.
If you start with the notion that there should be a huge beast called "government," with the right to forcibly control everyone, what would you expect to happen? Is it likely to do what you want it to, just because you asked nicely, or is it likely to do whatever will provide it with money and power? When a bill comes up in congress, which do you think your "representative" is going to care about more: your pathetic whining, or the lobbyist with a $100,000 check in his hand? You say you'd threaten to vote against him? You think he cares? He can buy a lot of votes with $100,000.
As soon as there is an authoritarian control machine, it will of course be bought and owned by super-rich, nasty control freaks. That's why, if you don't like the corporate fascism we have today, the answer is not to demand more "government" power (duh), and it's not to whine to the politicians who have already been bought (duh), and it's not to try to come up with some magic way to suspend the laws of economics and human nature, to make "the system" give up its money and power in favor of doing whatever you want it to do. The answer is to not have an authoritarian control machine to begin with. If you don't have an all-knowing, all-powerful master, he can't be bought. But if you do have one, he will immediately be bought. Maybe some day people will understand that, and they'll stop engaging in the silly ritual of creating giant, unstoppable monsters, and then hoping they'll do the right thing.