Regulatory capture can take various forms, such as influencing the creation of new regulations that favor incumbents, lobbying for selective enforcement of existing regulations, or even having industry insiders appointed to key regulatory positions. It's a well-studied topic in economics, political science, and public policy, and is seen as a form of government failure that leads to market inefficiencies and reduced competition.
Regulatory capture.
This is strictly a failure of government, and by extension the people.
Many countries ban donations from companies, doesn't let companies pay for politicians ads, etc. Doesn't mean it's perfect, government rely on jobs from companies to make their citizens happy, but it does help to make the politician a bit more independent from corporate interest.
Hmm, outrage sounding yet devoid of any meaning. No wonder populism is trendy. It invokes anger in people without viable solution.
Corruption exists all over the world regardless of political or economy system. If donation cannot be done legally, and documented, it will be done under the table. Qatargate is only a recent example, known because of its high profile, not because it being rare.
"Panzeri's group received payment in cash from Qatar, Morocco, Mauritania and possibly Saudi Arabia. The group are described as "shockingly amateurish", because they stored the money they received in bribes in their apartments, made hundreds of unencrypted telephone calls and held a "held a conspiratorial meeting in a hotel that was full of surveillance cameras". Nevertheless, they operated undetected for years. Green Party MEP Viola von Cramon-Taubadel said that Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Russia also "systematically purchased influence over an extended period"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_corruption_scandal_at_th...
The same phenomenon occurs with other forms of government, such as Socialism or communism.
I’d say its just capitalist, period. The owners of capital, collectively and individually, using government as a vehicle to advance their interest is the whole origin and nature of capitalism.
“free markets”, etc., are post hoc idealistic rationalizations that were created to defend those interests by selling people on capitalism well after it existed, and do not reflect the reality of capitalism.
Well it clearly incentivizes regulatory capture, so there's that.
Is that a failure? When you have no strong barriers keeping people and organizations from being able to buy politicians, practically no one with any power looking to change it, I would say that it isn't - at that point it's just working as intended.
It’s the reason companies lobby for them.
Lot of them surely come from pushes by companies, but if "almost all" is to believed, you're gonna have to cite something that shows this.