I agree with you on that point, and I am not opposed to positive reform. I am asking whether you are really fixing anything by fixing symptoms. If you eliminate one tactic employed by an oligarchy to infix corruption, but the oligarchic strategy to dominate people through the lever of capitalism remains, does it not stand to reason that a new tactic will take the place of any tactic rendered obsolete? Is it not even possible, with developments like Trump’s “Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty” vis-à-vis the Johnson Amendment, that this is happening in anticipation of current methods of corruption being deprecated?
I feel like you have to call it by it’s name and acknowledge the inevitability of corruption in the context of both capitalism and representative democracy, which is the point I try to make in the piece I linked. Both are inherently flawed when it comes to preserving the well-being of ordinary citizens, and both feed off of each other to further empower the oligarchic establishment. Fair electoral districts and campaign finance reform will only address tactics of corruption, not the philosophy of corruption and disenfranchisement that underpins our system at its fundamental level.
Much as you have illustrated time and again why the threat to civilization that is global warming cannot be addressed effectively because of political corruption, I am saying that political corruption cannot be effectively addressed because of the limitations of both capitalism and representative democracy.