Private money - whether it be from rich people or large corporations - should have no place in politics. The vote of a poor single mother working two jobs to only barely feed her children should carry just as much weight as that of a rich tycoon. If you believe that money should institutionally equate to influence, then you do not believe in equality.
The National Woman's Party is an example of a lobbying group which worked for decades first for women's suffrage and then for prohibition on sex discrimination and the Equal Rights Amendment. Where was the corruption in that use of money to influence politicians?
In your example of a poor single mother working two jobs, that mother is very unlikely to have the private money to take the time off. Thus, private money will always have an effect on politics.
There are ways to limit its effect. For one, tax the richest people and most profitable companies much more heavily than they are now, and increase social support for the poorest. But by your criteria that's still going to end up with corruption.
The people should be able to influence a politician more often than just at the ballot box. The question is, at what point is that extra influence inappropriate? I believe your use here "corruption" is too strict and binary, such that no government can meet that standard.
One the issues near to my heart is environmental protection. The advancements made in environmental protection over the last 50 years have all been accomplished through the expenditure of money. It costs very little money to convince people to adhere to the old ways. It costs no money to convince West Virginians that coal and coal mining is good. It costs no money to convince Oregonians that logging is good. Commissioning studies to show that the health damage from coal mining would double the price of coal if accounted for? Making movies to help people visualize the catastrophe of strip mining? That costs money.
What irks me the most about liberals' opposition to Citizens United is their failure to realize that money being speech helps them more than it helps conservatives. It costs very little money to promote conservatism. People are predisposed to wanting to preserve the status quo. Its those that oppose the status quo that benefit the most from high profile advocacy. The opposition of the tech industry to surveillance Is the paradigmatic example of this phenomenon. The tech industry will have to spend a lot more money on advocacy to move forward from cold war era views then defense contractors will spend to defend the status quo.
Perhaps in theory, but in practice a lot of money is spent on it.
So if I spend money to buy cardboard & a permanent marker, write a picket sign, and picket outside the office of a politician to influence him I am engaging in corruption?
The vote of a poor single mother working two jobs to only barely feed her children should carry just as much weight as that of a rich tycoon
To my understanding, their votes carry the same weight; the problem is the people's votes are easy to "buy". Prop 8 in California was passed when a surge of pro-Prop 8 money flooded the state. Did that money buy politicians? No, it bought votes.
As for money from corporations or private donors- how do you propose campaigns are funded? The only other source is out of the contender's own pockets. But I don't think you'll like that answer either, considering the better-funded campaign usually wins. Only the richest rich would be able to get elected!
In addition, you bought a computer and paid for Internet service in order to access and post to Hacker News--which were also expenditures.
These are the sorts of things that lobbyists spend their money on.
I have plenty of issues[1] with the whole lobbying process, but with your definition how does anyone get anything done at all? Ever? This is assuming you believe the system can be fixed while still working within the rules of the system. FWIW, I'm personally starting to doubt that but if anyone can pull it off it's companies like Google.
Some people believe that each citizen should have the same ability to influence their government, regardless of how much money each one has to spend.