While I agree with him that the corruption of replacing "The People" with "The Funders" as the prime dependency of Congress is bipartisan, I think that there is increasing separation between the parties. This increasing separation is not so much their reliance upon money (of course that is bipartisan). But upon having actual ideas and proposals and laws on which they run for election, and then implementing them as they were elected to do.
For instance, Republicans in the Bush years were elected, ostensibly, to do what Republicans always say they will do: cut taxes and government spending.
They did the first, especially for the rich. The latter...not so much.
The Democrats, on the other hand, promise to allow taxes to raise for the wealthy and to protect the social programs that exist for the elderly and poor.
They do that. Not perfectly. Not as much as they promised when running for election. But at least they fuc*ing do it.
So while both parties are corrupted by their endless need for campaign funds and kickbacks, at least one of those parties represents The People who put them there once they are there.
Henry David Thoreau wrote in Walden ("Economy", p. 98):
Lessig is calling his venture to cut out The Funders a mission to strike at the root of corruption.
