Government for, by, and of the people. How does this exist when PACs, unions, and corporations are allowed to make political decisions via funding?

It’s inherent that many people who work for a corporation, for instance, don’t agree with its’ political aims. Is it fair to take the profits of a corporate entity, contributed to by people of all beliefs and ideas, and use them to donate to political campaigns? If I work for Company X who donates $100 million (which I have contributed to) to Candidate X, but it’s in my own best interests to support Candidate Y, how is it fair that I must basically attempt to outspend myself?

The same is true with unions, PACs, etc, who can pool large amounts of money towards the campaigns of candidates who have platforms to which all its’ members may not ascribe to.

I have an idea, a seed, of a solution: Ban all non-private political campaign donations. If I am the CEO of a multinational corporation, I may very well vote and contribute in the same way, with a large sum of money, but I believe that the political interests of corporations and organizations are inherently against the interests of the people in general.

PACs and organizations may still publicize a preferred candidate, and as members of said organization, there is the option to vote or donate along the suggested lines, but the control stays within private hands. This is definitely a step towards public campaign funding, which I don’t particularly see as a bad thing. Maybe with less of an ad-spend, we’ll be able to get messages that matter, or in-depth policy comparisons. Maybe we could have intelligent discussions about the state of politics.

I’m not sure I’m asking if this can be achieved at all – it would take more than a blog post to discuss, but rather, a movement. I want to know if in theory, this is a flawed concept, or a sound one.

I want your feedback, potential issues with this idea, please!