No, what you describe is the absence of standing. It has been the law since the founding of our nation that in order to have standing in court, a plaintiffs needs to show that he has suffered a cognizable injury that is both concrete and particularized to that individual. The citizenry at large suffering an injury, rather than an individual, is the exact opposite of what you propose; it means no one has standing to bring a lawsuit.

This rule exists for a very good reason: courts exist to resolve particular disputes between individuals for specific harm suffered. Matters that affect the citizenry as a whole are meant to be resolved at the ballot box, not in the courts.

How would you distinguish this from the cases of every taxpayer has a right to keep his tax dollars from being used to fight an unjust war, or support Planned Parenthood? In these cases the fungibility of tax dollars creates an even stronger argument of damages.

(1) Political question.
(2) Justiciability (i.e., what would be the remedy?).
(3) Merits–payments to a separate legal entity, not Trump himself, don’t violate the Clause.

The 12/16 document “The Emoluments Clause: Its Text, Meaning, And Application to Donald J. Trump” by Eisen, Painter, and Tribe is at
http://www.commoncause.org/democracy-wire/trump-conflicts-of-interest-may-violate-emoluments-clause.html
In the comments section, there are 4 videos describing the Emoluments Clause and other materials.