I think the central argument is: corporations must make money to donate, and generally make money by providing a service that people want or need. In that way,

I think the central argument is: corporations must make money to donate, and generally make money by providing a service that people want or need. In that way, corporate interests may be tied to a population's interests. Obviously this could be flawed (to the point of exclusion) in many ways, and I'd enjoy discussion around it. > many strong examples of where corporate donation to political parties has lead to demonstrably better outcomes for people at citizens. I'd bet you could find many strong examples in both directions. I think we'd need either evidence that its systematically one way or the other, or strong logical arguments as to why it would be inevitable (i.e. evidence lacking).