I may not be able to come up with the perfect solution myself, but I'm sure there is a way to maintain regular people's ability to organize and even donate politically without having greedy corporate interests take over such entities. Politicians should work to find that solution and ban everything else.

There is just so much wrong with the U.S. electoral system, it's hard to even know where to start. Money in politics, the FPTP system (which also helped the pro-Brexit party in UK win the most seats again, despite the majority of votes going to anti-Brexit parties), electoral college, antiquated caucus system in primaries, all the technical obstacles that two parties have set against independents and third-parties to ensure they never have a real shot and that the real status-quo is maintained (permanent war, helping their wealthy friends, spying on everyone, keeping citizens in the dark about the real issues, etc).

So employees donate money to a fund that they then don’t have a say in and for reasons that might be as unrelated as wanting to get good seats for a talk by Phil Knight.

This independent org then donates across party lines to issues that the manager believes are aligned with corporate interests that may also conflict with other corporate interests such as green initiatives and LGBTQ issues since a republican senator might be for rural broadband access but not gay marriage.

There was also an internal movement to try and starve the PAC by not donating to it.

And TBC, throwing a wrench in this even more, from a pure money perspective we’re talking about tens - hundreds of thousands vs. 1 billion.

Really, my point is that, like any large organization, a manichean view of things is not sufficiently nuanced and does a disservice to the complexity intrinsic with large groups of people.