I'm talking about the ability of people to concentrate soft power with capital. At least with federal programs there's _some_ ability for the average person to influence how the program is run, even if it's abstracted through Congress and elections.
I don't agree that there's any substantive difference in what you're complaining about and what you're proposing as a solution. The scenario in both cases is people being dependent for essential livelihood on organizations administered by strangers with their own motives.
However, the status quo reality doesn't fully reflect what you're complaining about, because the "ability of people to concentrate soft power with capital" is something that is distributed widely across society, with a vast plurality of institutions and communities, having varying and often opposing motivations, all having the capacity to independently develop their own capital.
Conversely, the political state is a single institution with structural incentives that converge toward a single set of objectives, and no, the electoral process is not a sufficient mechanism of accountability.
Effectively, what you are arguing for is taking the pattern that you find unfavorable in the first place, and putting it under the control of a single centralized monopoly with insufficient safeguards against abuse.