This article, on how financiers have taken over government, is getting a lot of attention.
Frankly, while interesting in parts, this article is pretty dumb. You could have written a similar article at any time in American History. Nothing new is happening here. For a decent history of this issue (in a book that is not really directly related to this issue) try this one, for example. The rise of large financial regulators and especially the Federal Reserve (and especially the New York Federal Reserve) has always been completely and unseparably intertwined with large financial firms. There is nothing new to see here.
I still cringe every time I read that deregulation in the 80s is to blame for the crisis. Presumably, this means the repeal of Glass-Steagall is to blame. Let's assume that the integration of investment banking and commercial banking is to blame for the crisis. Logically then, the institutions where the most integration between investment and commercial banking has taken place should be in the worst shape. I would suggest that JPM was the most integrated institution. Also, firms with lower levels of integration should be doing best – I would nominate BAC and LEH and BS as contenders. I don't mean to suggest that this argument is 100% wrong, but I see no evidence for it being correct.
(I think it would be more interesting to analyze whether the big deregulation of financial firms in Britain under Thatcher was the real cause. People don't realize that after that event, regulating financial firms became very difficult. If regulation in the US became too stringent, whole portions of a firm would just move to a different jurisdiction. I still think this argument is weak and purely ideological, but at least this form of the argument would have some logic to recommend to it).