> 100,000 individuals who own 100,000 properties have far more political power than 10 companies who own 100,000 properties.
Is that really true in the US?
Consider every other expense that people have that's supplied by companies (see: literally everything). Why have those companies not successfully lobbied to prevent competition? Industries where it happens are the exception, not the rule.
100,000 votes (and really probably closer to 150,000 influenceable votes across those households) is a significant number compared to 10 companies who own an average of 10,000 properties each, yes.