> Why would preventing corporations from funding politicians prevent the individual members of a corporation from funding politicians?
Even under Citizens United, corporations are still prohibited from funding politicians, per se. What they are permitted to do is make unlimited independent expenditures of their own funds in order to promote candidates, policies, etc.
And corporations are not just natural persons banding together, they are creations of government through which other people in society subsidize the downside risk of the people "banding together" in the corporation, including debts incurred -- so anything they are allowed to spend funds on is something that potentially something other people would be forced to pay for even though the people "banding together" were solvent.
Even under Citizens United, corporations are still prohibited from funding politicians, per se. What they are permitted to do is make unlimited independent expenditures of their own funds in order to promote candidates, policies, etc.
And corporations are not just natural persons banding together, they are creations of government through which other people in society subsidize the downside risk of the people "banding together" in the corporation, including debts incurred -- so anything they are allowed to spend funds on is something that potentially something other people would be forced to pay for even though the people "banding together" were solvent.