Short facts at the beginning: in 2004, from one hundred biggest donors for federal candidates in the US, half of them were Multinational Corporations, couple of them donated enormous amount of money to the campaigns. For instance Goldman Sachs donated $6.5 million dollars, Microsoft donated $3.5 million. But the question is why? Obviously they are not doing it because the Chef Executive Officers and board of those firm have a big and good hearts and they feel that they should support the politicians that will work for the better future of the society. They are doing this to have the politicians in their pockets and by lobbying and pressure those who took the donations to work for them in the Senate or in the Parliament (isn’t that a legal bribe?). For instance HP was charged with $108 million fee for bribery scandal in which the firm violated Foreign Corrupt Act in Mexico, Russia and Poland in order the get the contracts to supply the government with its equipment (source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/09/sec_slaps_hp_with_108_meeelion_fine_for_bribe_scandal/).
Funny, because the sugar growers in US lobbied the politicians to push forward the decision to keep subsidies, even if keeping them cost the taxpayers $1.4 billion per year r with the largest one percent of U.S. sugar growers – the ones with major political clout – receiving nearly half of the sugar subsidy money. (source: http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/education_materials/modules/Corporate_Power_in_a_Global_Economy.pdf)
So for me there is almost no difference between the two situations.