corporations and government both exists as a conglomeration of lots of people.  not everyone in government is corrupt, just as not everyone in 'corporation' is corrupt.  unfortunately, both entities tend to be organized in such a way as to allow individuals to hurt or take advantage of others for their own benefit.

the difference between a 'government' and 'corporate' entity is that the government is created to serve the public's interest (that means they work for you saint and miles!) whereas a corporate entity exists to work for the stakeholder of that corporation's interest.  also, as voters we have some influence over who runs the government (there is some corruption in that process, but obama wouldn't be president and ryan would be a congressman if they weren't elected).  we typically do not have influence over who runs a corporation.

saint, your political philosophy tends to suggest that political power should be entrusted to those corporations and other ultra-wealthy people, right?  for example, government shouldn't be involved in making roads.  if we are going to have roads, gutters, and storm sewers, they should be developed by private parties for their own self-interest and their own private profit.  there shouldn't be roads or storm sewers in my neighborhood, because people that live around me wouldn't be able to afford to build or maintain them.

also, wealth should be distributed such that those few ultra-wealthy can hold as much as they want.  if the people who work for them die of starvation, unsafe working conditions, or lack of basic healthcare, well then that's a cost of business.  better than having to pay them.  what happened with that soccer stadium zaha designed is great.  government didn't mettle where it shouldn't, passing osha regulations and such, so the contractor was able to exploit a large immigrant worker population and make obscene profits from killing them.  that's how it should work.  important rich people get richer while killing off the expendable labor class, right?

saint, i kind of rethought my last post, which suggested you want corporations and ultra-wealthy wielding political power instead of government.  you did say you thought corporations were corrupt, so perhaps you want both the government and influential wealthy people out of a position to make decisions that effect us, such as how to get healthcare and how roads are built.

is there a third group that hasn't been brought up yet?  you could say 'us' or something, like if it's not the government that builds roads, and it's not walmart that will build roads, you might think the middle class will just step up and build their own private infrastructure.  that would be a bit naive though, right?  i mean, we had local hardware stores before big corporate home depot moved in.  we had local family owned grocery stores before big corporate walmart located by the interstate.  i think there have been enough examples in most of our lives where we've actually seen the ability of a large, wealthy organization to bully and push out smaller entities.  i've also seen the government step in and tell walmart they aren't allowed to build because the community (i.e., the governed; those who are represented by the government) doesn't want them in their neighborhood.  reducing government and deregulating those big wealthy groups will give them more power and more ability to unduly influence 'us' or 'the middle class.' 

as voters we have some influence over who runs the government

Don't kid yourself.

Two very important films will change the way you look at elections. Orwell Rolls in His Grave and Brian Springer's Spin. The first is about the media, the second goes deeper.

There is also the defeat of GMO labeling initiatives after industry groups flooded the campaign with tens of millions in advertising revenue claiming that labeling would 'increase the cost of food', the installation of Bush when the Supreme Court denied a recount, election hacking in Ohio exposed by Clinton Curtis and the simple fact that the candidate with the most money "wins" > 90% of the time.

Don't forget the Supreme Court ruling that money is speech, effectively eliminating any kind of campaign finance reform. The vote you cast at the ballot box sells you the illusion of legitimacy. Green Party candidate for president Jill Stein was arrested just for showing up at the Obamney debate at Hofstra university. This goes right back to Springer's film, which documents the same treatment of Larry Agran in 1992.

The average member of the house must raise $10,000 a week every week of their 2 year term to run a reelection campaign. For the average Senator it is now more than $30,000 a week for 6 years.

Saint in the City  Are you merely intent on attempting to prove me wrong, or are you missing an important point?  Your outline is almost correct.  However, you make no room for the fact that judges can act essentially unlawfully, yet their rulings become law.  Or is it your premise that this does not occur?

According to the Constitution, the rulings of the Supreme Court (and the other courts whose rulings form precedent) do become law. Of course, that does not preclude changes in the law as a reaction to those rulings, nor does it mean that you have to philosophically agree with the law. In cases in which the legislative and executive branches react to a court ruling to remedy what they see as a flawed ruling, as in the recent case of peeping toms in Massachusetts, as well as in those in which a later court ruling overturns previously settled rulings and precedent, as in Brown v. Board of Education or Citizens United v. FEC, law established by court rulings can be changed just as can law established by legislation. In both cases, laws can be flawed, but simply because they do not conform to your interpretation of the Constitution does not make them unconstitutional or unlawful.