Publicly financed elections.

[Ryantology]

The comparison does work. You claimed corporations allow an individual, the executive of the corporation, to have a greater voice and influence in politics than your typical citizens by granting him/her access to money that does not belong to him. A publicly financed campaign does the exact same thing. It gives a candidate a greater voice and influence in politics than your typical citizen by granting him/her access to money that does not belong to him.

No, it doesn't work at all.

A campaign is an event specifically designed for a candidate to express their viewpoints and to encourage voters to help them achieve public office. That is emphatically not (supposed to be) the point of corporate entities. Campaign money is raised for the purpose of an election. Corporate profits are not (supposed to be).

It fails further because I mentioned pretty clearly that the candidates should have equal access to equal amounts of money which is strictly limited and should be entirely accounted for. Again, not the case in the corporate world.

It fails mostly because there is no basis for comparison at all between a campaign and a corporation. They don't do the same things, they don't operate the same way, and they don't serve the same ends. Only, you think that it should be like that.

So, again, why not just sell votes, so that people who can afford to vote a million times can? That's the logical end result of money equaling speech, after all. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.