Executives would have to hold the stock shares they receive as compensation for at least five years. And corporations would have to get approval from 75 percent of their shareholders and 75 percent of their directors to make political campaign donations.

Corporations are legal entities with distinct privileges, like limited liability, so it would be perfectly reasonable for the government to require corporate boards to include labor representatives. This would encourage corporations to maximize profits by investing in their workers rather than by cutting labor costs.

Beyond corporations, a broader pre-distribution agenda would include labor regulation, financial regulation and antitrust. For example, the government should revise labor regulations to strengthen employees’ bargaining power, which would give them a fairer share of corporate returns. The government should crack down on noncompete clauses, which undermine workers’ ability to sell their labor to the highest bidder. And it should restrict mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts, which require workers to give up their right to take their employers to court; such clauses were endorsed by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision in May.

This pre-distribution approach to labor would likely appeal to swing voters — in particular, ones who voted for both Barack Obama and Mr. Trump — more than the job guarantees proposed by Senator Sanders because pre-distribution means fair pay rather than government largess.

Likewise, financial regulation is not just about preventing financial institutions from taking excessive risks or protecting small investors from their own folly. It is also about something more fundamental: who gets the returns from financial activity.

In recent years, the relaxing of regulations has allowed financial firms to enjoy greater profits and bank executives to win higher compensation without delivering more value to ordinary investors. So the government should reinforce the Dodd-Frank rules that constrain financial institutions from padding profits via risky trading — not further ease them, as the Trump administration proposes. It should bolster consumer protection, not gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And it should enhance the fiduciary rule, which requires investment advisers to put their clients’ interests first, not refuse to enforce it.

On antitrust, the government should be warier about corporate mergers, and more aggressive in stopping dominant firms from squashing their competitors. Over the past few decades, weak antitrust enforcement has meant higher profits for companies that dominate their markets, fewer opportunities for challengers, larger salaries for managers, higher prices for consumers and lower wages for workers.