Your complaints aren't remotely new, but they're also not remotely realistic.
The Constitution gives Congress certain powers such to coin money, but no one expected them to personally work in the mints. They draft the laws that provide for the duties to be carried out by other parts of government. Technically, they have the power to raise and spend money, but they don't have a constitutional requirement.
The Executive Branch is provided the responsibility to enforce the laws, but for practical matters require that it must sometimes decline to enforce the law due to other, more pressing concerns such as the cost of prosecution or where the effect of enforcing the law could have a larger detriment. This might include not enforcing some aspect of the health care law to allow for practical realities to be ironed out.
The Supreme Court has always had internal politics. In one extreme example, Justice James Clark Reynolds despised Justices Louis Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo simply because the they were Jews and would not sit next to or speak with them nor sign opinions written by them. But one does not ever know for certain how they will rule going in. One of the most stunning to me was in Gonzalez v. Raich over California's legalization of medical marijuana. The case was decided 6-3, but the dissent included one by Justice O'Connor which was joined by the Chief Justice Rehnquist and a separate dissent by Justice Thomas, the latter two of the most conservative justices who broke with their conservative colleagues who grouped with their more liberal colleagues to rule in favor of the federal government.
Finally, on the topic of corporations and politics, the argument is that corporations are groups of people. To block spending by them, every other group would have to be blocked from political spending. Maybe this would be good--it would certainly quell the protest from the right over unions spending money--but as we've seen with 501(c)(4) groups, getting that regulation right is incredibly difficult. But it may also have a detrimental effect on anonymous contribution to political dialogue, as forcing everyone behind the political speech to be named could be seen as oppressive.
Many people want a very simple, straightforward implementation of the ideals in the Constitution. But reality is messy, and political reality even worse. No one gets everything they want, at least not for long, before something swings against them.