The reality is that we don't have a completely free market and we *shouldn't* and no sane person would say that we should. We have regulations and laws. Those laws protect consumers, they stabilize the economy (or at least they're supposed to), and they help companies.
In fact, at the most fundamental, the entire existance of the idea of a "Corporation" is a fabrication which is enforced by our government and in fact is a very powerful distortion of a true anarchistic/libertarian free market. The corporation allows individuals to take very great risks without personal responsibility. That's okay if it is balanced by requirements that make sure they are supportive of the greater good of the nation. Furthermore, the whole Federal Reserve system is a big distortion of "free market" ; it's sort of ironic for these Federal Reserve chiefs to be lobbying for the free market; umm.. so your giving cheap money to a select few institutions, what exactly is free about that? But again, that's fine, the Fed is a reasonable thing to have to stabilize the economy for the greater good of the nation - but only if the people getting fed money are held responsible.
The debate is not about "free market" vs. "not free market". The debate should be about what kind of regulatory structure will be best for the people of America as a whole. Often what's good for certain large businesses is also what's good for America, but not always. The real debate here is not about "free markets" but about corporatism - the idea that if the government acts in the best interest of large corporations that it is also helping the majority of Americans.
I just randomly found this blog by another programmer with liberal leanings who actually does some research and doesn't just write nonsense like me.