Apologies for not getting back to you earlier.
It's inherent in its nature. Policy is crafted by a single corporation that imposes it on all that it claims within its purview. This concentration of power creates an elite class that writes policy. Now who makes up this elite? Obviously not just anyone, because the goal is to create "good policy" which means you seek out the elite class of those within the purview of the policy.
This is what creates regulatory capture. If you were to write, say oil industry regulations you can't just assemble some random dopes ala the jury method and have them do it. You need someone who has knowledge of the oil industry. Their knowledge of the regulations and its process increases their value to those subject to the regulations and its processes. And then consequently their increased knowledge of the oil industry increases their value back to the policymakers and regulators.
The elite few behind policy is effectively the main corporation and those it assembles to assist it, often other elite corporations because large corporations prefer to do business with each other not smaller and more difficult to manage competitors.
This is why even "democratic" impetus for policymaking is dominated by the elite few when it comes time to craft the actual policy. (If they aren't behind the impetus to begin with.) To once again use my favorite example, Mattel imported a bunch of lead laden toys from China. "The people" got outraged and the government moved to correct this problem with policy. The resulting policy increased testing costs that fell in a quite disproportional manner on small firms and consumers, something that benefits somebody like oh, say, Mattel. But then the kicker, because there's always one: Mattel was exempted from the regulations!
The government has an unique monopoly. As it expands this monopoly into various areas of life it obviously would draw the interest of the elites in whatever area to insure they benefit from the monopoly power entering the realm. This is mutual gain between the elite corporations because one is allowed to expand its influence and the ones being expanded upon gain the access to utilize its monopoly powers to suppress competitors.
This is why PEMEX is such a culture of outsized power and corruption and immunity from accountability despite being "in the hands of the people" obstinately. It's all these things wrapped into one AND a source of a determined constituency.
So what does all this rambling mean? When you transcend the First Amendment limitations it's not actually empowering "millions" but empowering the elites to further close out competitors. You're actually reducing the number of voices being heard. As is to gain access to the monopoly power you essentially have to go through two corporations which have set all the rules. Mounting an independent or third party bid has massive costs in comparison. Whereas those corporations by their access to the monopoly power have agreed to "let you pick" from the two options they have chosen to offer. Mounting a primary challenge WITHIN these corporations has outsized costs if you don't already have elite ties within them.
The marketplace of ideas is limited to those with elite access. The two major political corporations, the billion dollar corporations given access by "press" privileges or the mentioned nature of regulatory capture, and anyone else the monopoly power or elite within it grants access to. But that's it. If you're cast outside this elite group your power drops tremendously.
The Koch Brothers, George Soros, Sheldon Adtkison, the unions (who benefited from Citizens United too we can't forget!), etc. (Along with the internet.) are the types of things that help to reduce the costs of challenges to the existing elite structures. The Tea Party primary victories are a direct result of this, any forthcoming progressive/Green/OWS-associated rises will also benefit from this increased capability to participate. Until the duopoly's hold is broken and the electoral process reformed to reduce the costs, you need a way to pay for those costs.
Reducing political say to periodic voting doesn't do this because voting has insignificant power.
Maybe expanding access will result in worse people getting elected and worse policies being enacted. But that's what you get with democracy. And you can always go back to the current system of elite rule or further in that direction.
TL;DR: I'm an nutjob.
