There's an ample supply of straw men to eat.
"Intent" matters when you write down the words and they get approved by a majority of representatives. Otherwise, Jefferson's "intent" as to his fears is every bit as useful as Pelosi's "intent" when ordering the next time she goes to a restaurant.
Esp. since things are so different from the 1790s.
I'm not sure who intends for corporations to control our elections, apart from a few narcissists that run corporations.
Perhaps you mean "corporations" like the DNC? They don't control "our" elections, if by "our" you mean the American electorate's elections. They control their internal elections. You want to run for office, go for it. Get the petitions filled out, get supporters, and run.
Perhaps you mean because they can contribute to election campaigns? Don't choose corrupt politicians. And remember that some candidates have vastly outspent their opponents and gone down in flames. Money doesn't buy elections; if the message isn't what voters want, it's not like the voters are receiving walking money. They listen, shrug, and either don't vote or vote how they'd vote anyway. This argument partly boils down to, "Sometimes my side loses; it can't be because it's not what voters want, my side is superior and virtuous and right, so the PTB must have bought the electorate." And, when on the winning side of the spending, "The electorate was wise and virtuous and agreed with us. Oh, there was campaign finance advantages? No matter, we'd have won anyway." The rest of the argument relies on low-information voters that one side or the other can convince through sheer force of repetition. I'm a democrat, but this kind of voter makes me queasy.