This embeds the idea that someone making more money has a right to a larger voice than someone that doesn't. - In my "if the world were simple" dreams I'd say something like "every voter can spend $200 - any lobbying group or corp can spend that $200 IN THEIR NAME, but then no one else, including that voter, can. Corps/groups can still raise money and represent their members (who don't have to each spend that money) but it doesn't make a small group of wealthy voters look like a big group of voters. The groups/corps would have to make sure they represented the views of their members, or those members would start revoking their permissions."

Of course, the world isn't that simple, but that sums up my views on money in politics.

I don't see how. I just said their opinion shouldn't be ignored, which is what the OP was suggesting by banning corporations which represent large groups of shareholders and employees.

No, it's a signal that you might be proposing an economically destructive policy. You're not required to listen to lobbyists or take their suggestions.

They could create form letters for their members to email their representatives.

Some charities I belong to operate this way.

Obviously Comcast could do this too but I don't think they'd be successful getting real people to lobby on their behalf.

>Furthermore, the fact that they have deep pockets is actually important. It means they reflect an important aspect of the economy, so ignoring their interests could also have detrimental economic effects.

The fact that they have deep pockets means that they can broadcast their message more easily so they have an inbuilt advantage. There's no reason not to compensate for that.

You might be surprised; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing for the way it's usually done.

Incase you didn’t know, all tax-exempt charitable organisations are already severely limited in how they’re allowed to engage in politics. They’re never allowed to endorse candidates, or directly or indirectly campaign for them.