I do not mean an absence of regulation, I mean limits on regulation, regulation as nothing more than the rule of law, and far less excessive government spending and "earmarks". A company should properly be concerned with whether or not it is complying with the law, and that should be an existential concern especially when it comes to significant externalities.

A company should not be concerned with whether or not it has enough influence in Washington relative to its competitors.

I'd speculate that for most industries the latter tends to be a higher level of concern than the former, and that is not in any way ok.

> The externalities that some businesses can impose on the public are so large that the public MUST have regulatory powers. If that encourages corruption we have to prosecute the corrupt, not weaken the oversight.

You're confusing "MUST" (actually SHOULD) with "CAN".

Look into regulatory capture. You can't ignore it or legislate it away any more than you can ignore or legislate away gravity.