What do you think of this possible campaign financing regulatory scheme?

Just throwing out an idea, not sure if it's good or not and curious for feedback.

The problem is that money cannot be regulated as speech, even when that money is spent by corporations because, after Citizen's United, corporations have the same free speech rights as people. I won't get into why I disagree with this ruling, only make a suggesting that I believe fits within the current state of the law.

Corporations can still be regulated by the Federal (and State) government, but it is their organizational and business practices that can be regulated, rather than their speech. OK, so let's make a regulation that says that any business organization wishing to spend money in a manner that a reasonable person informed of all factors would believe was intended to influence a politician or an election, that money must come directly from individuals who own that business and affirmatively opt in to such spending. If the business organization so desires, they may require that such money be spent, but allow it's owners spend their share of the money on an opposing political organization, a non-political charity, or on a public financing pool for elections (the same pot of money that your extra tax dollars go if you check the appropriate form on your tax return). Only money controlled by those with the legal right to influence a US election (a rule that varies, but is typically more broad than those with voting rights, but does not include foreign nationals) may be used to influence an election or a politician in this manner and any other money spent must go to either a charity or to the general campaign fund. Money owned by a government organization can only go toward the general campaign fund.

Obviously there would be a lot of details, but the main idea is that a corporation, union, partnership any other entity is ultimately made up of people. My quibble with the Supreme Court in Citizens United is over the fact that corporations, unlike partnerships and unions, are separate legal entities under the law whose motivations are required, by law, to be purely profit not good will, and so the personhood of the shareholders should not transfer to the corporation. But the Supreme Court disagrees, so for the purposes of this discussion, a corporation is made up of it's shareholders, a partnership is made up of it's partners, a union is made up of it's members, etc.

If any business organization wishes to spend money politically, it would send out a notice to it's members (as they do for various other purposes, like board member voting). Let's say the New York Yankees wants to spend money on an ad in support of a referendum in New York City to build another new stadium. They decide how much they will seek to spend. Then, they send out notices to their shareholders. Let's say the Steinbrenner's own 60% of the team. They vote yes and so 60% of the money the Yankees wish to spend can be spent. Let's say another 20% is owned by a partnership. That partnership in turn notifies it's members. Let's say one of them, owning half the partnership, 10% of the Yankees, is the New York State Pension fund (a very large private equity fund). That 10% goes to the general campaign fund. Perhaps the other half is owned by an institutional investor like Chase who invests money from their investment clients. Chase would then send a notice to their individual clients who would decide how their portion of the money would be spent. And so on for the remaining money.

Similarly, for a union, a union would have to ask it's members whether or not they want to donate to one particular cause or not.

Basically, the idea is that only people can decide how to spend their money on campaigns. Business organizations are prohibited as business organizations to make that decision for those who control the money. The decision must go back to the individuals then the money can only be spent when individuals with the legal right to spend it can be found and affirm to do it.

One effect would be to slow down the process. First of all, the business organization seeking to spend the money could choose the manner of notification to speed it up if they wish. However, the fact that the process is slower and more transparent is overall a good thing. It allows individuals to have some warning and some say in how their money is spent.

What do you think? Do you think that would be Constitutional under the current jurisprudence? Why or why not? Do you think it is a good policy? Why or why not? What would you do to improve it?