That does not even make sense. If influence is ethical the level of it will not change its ethics. What might make it unethical is if you use that influence for something wrong, but that can happen even if all you can do is annoy someone.
I do agree that the government should not represent the interest of corporations though, which is why I want to get rid of all those regulations that you are stupid enough to believe are designed to protect you from corporations.
Have you ever noticed that the more regulations we get the bigger corporations get? Have you ever wondered why that happens?
You don't agree. If you did, you wouldn't be trying as hard as you can to maximize the influence of corporations. Also, if regulations were really so beneficial to corporations, it seems pretty bizarre that spend tens of millions a dollar per year opposing them.
Lets get something straight here, I am not trying to maximize the influence of corporations, I am trying to minimize it. Limiting the donations that individuals can make to candidates means that corporations can hire lobbyists to make their case to elected officials. Telling individuals they cannot pool their money and advocate for, or against, a candidate means that corporations can spend money on lobbyists to influence elected officials. Every thing you stand for gives corporations more power to write the laws they like. If you did not have your head so far up the collective ass of the incumbents in power you would see that. Unfortunately, your ears are clogged with shit, so all I can do is point out how wrong you are so others won't fall into the same trap.
If you actually think average everyday folk, even when acting together, have anywhere near the influence of bankers, hedge fund managers, and other executive types, you're completely lost in space.