A law that targeted corporate executives would have no chance of surviving the legal precedent of those two cases. It wouldn't do much to solve the problem of dollars having more influence these days than one-person-one-vote in the U.S., but hey, don't let me stop you.
If you care about democracy, you want to make it easier for individual people to spend a lot of money on politics.
As with so many regulations, it mostly benefits the people who have enough resources to work around them:
With strict limits per person, you need a huge established machine that can reach out to many individuals to get your donations rolling. Without limits, you just need to convince one eccentric billionaire. While the latter is still hard, it's still much easier done than the former.
Yes, because we want people with sufficient money to be the only ones with a voice, and we want their voices to massively outweigh the voices of everyone else. That's definitely what someone who cares about democracy would want.
