There is a fundamental problem with both lobbying and campaign finance that none of the existing laws or proposed reforms can fix, one that stems from the decision of the Supreme Court 30 years ago in the case of
Buckley v Valeo. In that case the Court declared that the right of free speech, including political speech, must be afforded not only to natural persons but also to juridical persons like corporations. It would be wonderful if this precedent could be overturned, but the appointment of the corporation-friendly Alito to the Court is likely only to strengthen the power of corporations over our government. So we need to get more creative.
The problem with many legislative fixes for corporate corruption of our politics is that they DO feel like bureaucratic restrictions on political activity, even though they never seem to stop the flow of money. But maybe we can reframe the debate by focusing on exactly what corruption means for a democractically elected government.
The core principle of a democracy is "one person one vote." This principle is incompatible with the core principle of corporate organization, which is "one dollar one vote." This corporate principle works fine for economic organizations in a competitive market economy but when corporations enter the political sphere, they inevitably compromise the democratic principle.
Since the Supreme Court is not about to overturn the Buckley case, how about proposing a workaround that is based on the principle of one person one vote? Suppose that all political lobbying and contributions had to be approved by a majority vote of both the shareholders (per capita, not per share) and the employees, or else by a special board of directors elected on the same democratic principle. Then some lobbying would not even be attempted and people could get a vote on the political activity of corporations for the price of one share. On the other hand, labor unions and other organizations whose boards are already elected on a one person one vote basis would be able to participate in the political process without undue restrictions.
Of course this proposal would not stand a chance in today's Congress. But merely making the proposal and talking about it could highlight the fact that it is really the principle of one dollar one vote that is corrupting our political process. At the same time, it would help to counteract the meme of equivalence between corporations and unions, corporate PACs and democratically run membership organizations.
The more politically connected of you out there can judge whether this approach is worth considering, but I thought is might at least be food for thought.