A handful of points:
-Many of the larger grain farms blur the lines between what's corporate and what's family. Our operation is good sized, contains some non-family members with ownership, but also contains me, my brother, dad, and uncle. We operate all the land that my grandpa farmed/still owns and all that land that my dad, uncle, and aunt own. But we have big equipment and function like a small company and many locals wouldn't consider us a family farm. The idea that there are "corporate farms" that are being run out of some office building in Chicago or New York is mostly a myth in the grain world. I'm not aware of any operation around me that functions like this. You do see this, or at least something like this, in the livestock industry.
-Small farms currently get more $ per acre from farm subsidies than large farms. Because of payment limitation caps, large farms generally max out on their payments and the money they receive is a much smaller percentage of their revenue. $ per acre is how financial performance is measured in grain production. If anything, the current subsidy system is much more vital to their survival than it is to the bigger operations.
-Personally, I would prefer that farm subsidies go the way of the buffalo. Because payment information is public, our landlords know how much we get. When they look that up, they inevitably want more rent. Seed, fertilizer, and equipment prices always rise after a big round of subsidies. It's basically welfare that creates immediate inflation in our operating expenses and washes itself out in the long term. Plus, it's a controversial issue that puts farmers in a negative light - especially when so many in this line of work can't see the naked hypocrisy in getting these payments, but then whining about poor people getting welfare checks (No CR).
Take what you want from this. Just my $.02.