Olbermann's comments on the issue were interesting -- of course, he takes it to his usual nth degree of histrionics but his heart is in the right place.
There's something fundamentally wrong (and this is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong) when the CEO of Walmart can donate a limited amount of $$ to a candidate, but Walmart itself can donate an unlimited amount to a candidate. In my book, that means that the candidate is thereby bought and beholden to Walmart. Walmart wants a piece of legislation passed? Walmart has bought that piece of legislation. Walmart doesn't want to pay for domestic partner benefits because they cost too dang much? Walmart starts paying for "those" politicians. Hallelujah, profits go up.
I've definitely read enough scifi where the corporation and the state are one and the same ("Snow Crash," anyone?). This seems to be one of those decisions which pushes things closer to that "fiction."
Edit: After reading Alex's post, , maybe one of my assertions isn't correct.. but still, let's face it, Walmart has a lot more money to run those commercials and "indirectly" donate to a candidate than even the CEO of Walmart.