When has justice ever had anything to do with the law?
When did I say it did?
When you said "an unjust law is no law at all".
Which means - justice and the law are mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite of the meaning you take away.
Sure, I vote a nearly straight third party ticket, preferring those whose policies I actually agree with when available
Which, does nothing to change the influence of lobbyists or force parties to actually listen to voters when setting the agenda. If you keep picking from the offered cards hoping for a game that you control you're just hoping for the triumph of optimism over experience.
So then oh wise master, what exactly are you trying to suggest?
That in a two party system you can't win. No amount of legislation will stop corporate interests from profitably influencing candidates in a two party system. Donate to both and any time either party wants to do the corporate bidding they simply need enough support from the other party to push the legislation through - which is already bought and paid for. But if the balance of power is held by a large number of candidates/parties the only way to ensure all their support is to influence all of them - which is kind of hard to do without increasing the size of the total influence budget, and damn near impossible to do if the parties/candidates who win changes every election. If the majority of voters give their vote to candidates who "don't stand a chance" - those that get elected will serve a wide range of masters. For them to get any legislation through they'll need extensive negotiation with other politicians to get their support. It'll mean politicians will need to do more work, and spend more time with their electorate, and most of the time they'll have to do things they don't want to do (but no one said democracy was meant to be easy).
The only way a constantly changing mixture of candidates can be elected is if people don't vote for one of the major parties. If everyone votes for a candidate they believe won't get enough votes to be elected the major parties won't hold a balance of power between them and will have to reach a broad compromise with a wide range of interest - and keep searching for an agenda for the next election that might gain them enough extra votes to gain a better negotiating position. If people don't vote for someone who already holds office... the corporate interests have very little power to influence outcomes. i.e. If you own ChicknLickn and want to get a better deal for you company you only need to "support" maybe two candidates. Say half a million each to ensure "support" across every state - and maybe a ChicknLickn store on every Army base. But if almost any candidate on the ticket might get elected - across the nation, you'd need to give a lot smaller share of the "support" to cover all the possibilities. Now the size of your "contribution" to local candidates is no bigger than what the local taco stand is donating (and he only wants a larger car park permit - not nationwide franchising favours).
You cannot legislate against influence. Aside from being like trying to get foxes to create laws to protect chickens, it's virtually impossible to properly define - hence impossible to prohibit. "Fancy that bellhop with the tight pants at the Majestic?", "Want a winning tip at the dogs?", "Want your children to stop getting bullied at school?", "Want your brother to get a pay rise?", "Want your church to get funding for chapel repairs?". There's an almost infinite number of ways to influence candidates. Trying to pass laws to stop it happening at all is like pissing up a rope and hoping to stay dry - or passing laws against taking drugs. Business will seek to influence candidates, gravity will affect urine, people will take drugs.
The alternative is to keep hoping that a two party system will change it's nature. It won't. And the same broken excuses will be trotted out to defend it. "We need experienced politicians - and major parties, to govern our complex government" 'cause it's worked so well so far? "Your way would lead to anarchy - none of the politicians would agree on anything and nothing would get done - we need major parties so people can be told to vote on legislation down the party line" - which is why corporate influence works, whoever wins is always one of the front runners. Different dog every election - same leg action. If Business can't influence candidates because they narrow down the number of likely winners they'll have to try and influence voters.