My @Quora answer to What are some arguments for banning non-personal campaign donations from US politics? http://qr.ae/7Do3N6
For me the biggest argument for strictly banning ALL corporate “donations” to policy-makers and ALL in kind “donations” is quite simple.
The Right to speak politically is an individual Right which is already vested in each individual. To vest an additional “Right” to such speech for corporations simply gives the Boards and managing executives of corporations an additional right to speak, aside from the one already vested with them, which other Citizens have no access to. Since many wealthy folks are managing members or directing members of multiple corporations this convenient fiat by SCOTUS gives them multiple voices with which to speak at politicians… thus drowning out the voices of ordinary Citizens.
This convenient fiat of corporate personhood gives Us this pattern we’ve had for almost 40 years now:
Which gives us this:
Here it is in the Study:
Note that this change wouldn’t affect the right to assembly, as each Citizen could still donate individually, as they see fit; because that Right is vested with the individual. What it would do is prevent those who are Board, or Managing members of multiple corporations from having multiple “voices” to speak at politicians in order to bribe them for “favors” like $158 Billion in corporate welfare while cutting welfare for Citizens to pay for it.
I also think we should return to the standard limitations of each Citizen being able to contribute up to a maximum of what the median income earner could be reasonably expected to donate… sauce 10% of $50 k or $5k per person per year max, with overages handled via the RICO clauses on Bribery of Public Officials.
This would limit EVERYONE to the principal of “one person one vote, one person one voice” in our Constitution. Which is as it should be.