With Democrats set to control Congress, Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and Rep. Robert Garcia of California are reportedly preparing an idea that deserves serious attention. They want to close what they call the “Elon Musk loophole” and curb a glaring avenue for corporate influence.

Their proposal would prevent powerful industry figures from trying to shape elections while benefiting from federal contracts. It would not end the broader ability of ultrawealthy donors to buy political influence, but it would confront one of its most ethically offensive forms.

“If you ask the normal person on the street whether it reeks of corruption for a CEO or big corporate shareholder to spend boatloads of money to elect members of Congress who will then ratify billion-dollar federal contracts, I think almost every person would say that stinks,” Van Hollen told The Washington Sun.

That blunt assessment gets to the heart of the proposal. Executives who profit handsomely from government contracts should not also be free to shower money on the politicians responsible for approving those arrangements.

Federal contracting companies are already prohibited from donating to federal political campaigns. The existing law, however, does not prevent individuals connected to those companies, and benefiting from their success, from making political donations of their own.

The proposed Close the Campaign Cash-for-Contracts Loophole Act would expand those restrictions. Government Executive reported that the bill “would also bar donations from officers of contracting corporations and their affiliates as well as anyone with at least 5% interest or share in the company.”

Musk offers the most dramatic example of why that gap matters. He runs multiple companies, including Tesla and SpaceX, that have received billions of dollars through federal contracts, and those companies have helped make him the world’s richest person.

Because Musk is treated as legally separate from his companies, he is not constrained by the prohibition on contractor donations. He has made extensive use of that freedom, spending close to half a billion dollars during this election cycle alone.

The New York Times reported that Musk “has given more money during the midterm elections than any donor has ever spent in a single election cycle, apart from wealthy candidates who have funded their own runs for office.”

Musk’s spending is especially extreme, but the underlying issue extends beyond one billionaire. Other wealthy executives also benefit from government contracts while pursuing political influence through large donations.

Jeff Hauser, founder and executive director of the Revolving Door Project, which fights corporate influence in politics, called the measure “absolutely worthwhile.”

“Democrats have been far too docile ever since Citizens United and the rest of the Roberts Court’s assault on common sense campaign finance reform,” Hauser said. The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision allowed corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited amounts on elections.

The proposal also fits with the Democratic Party’s emerging emphasis on corruption as an issue demanding government action. A September Gallup poll found that 89% of American adults believe corruption in the United States government is widespread.

That political focus has an obvious strategic appeal. Voters can readily recognize the ugly transaction when executives receive lucrative government business while helping fill the campaign accounts of politicians overseeing federal contracts.

The bill could pass easily in a House dominated by Democrats, according to the article, but its prospects in the Senate are far less promising. Democrats will not have a filibuster proof majority, while Republicans remain closely allied with corporate power and receive substantial financial support from it.

Even if the proposal hits a Senate wall, forcing a debate would clarify what Democrats intend to do about government domination by corporate interests and wealthy elites. Closing the Musk loophole would not repair the entire campaign finance system, but it would be a smart strike against an arrangement that plainly stinks.