Regulatory Capture: How Industry Influence Undermines Public Protection

Stephen Roberts 14 January 2026 15 Comments

Every time you fill a prescription, turn on your heater, or fly on a plane, you’re relying on government regulators to keep you safe. But what happens when the people meant to protect you start working for the companies they’re supposed to be watching? That’s regulatory capture-and it’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s a documented, recurring failure in how democracies manage power.

What Is Regulatory Capture?

Regulatory capture happens when the agencies created to serve the public end up serving the industries they’re supposed to regulate. It’s not always about bribery or illegal deals. Often, it’s quieter: a regulator takes a job at a company they once policed. A company gives a regulator a conference trip. A regulator leans on industry data because they don’t have the staff to do their own testing. Over time, the agency starts thinking like the industry-not like the public.

This isn’t new. The Interstate Commerce Commission, set up in 1887 to stop railroads from gouging farmers, ended up raising rates when railroads asked. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) missed warning signs before the 2008 financial crisis because so many of its staff had worked for Wall Street firms. In the UK, HM Revenue and Customs quietly gave giant corporations secret tax deals while pretending to collect a 19% corporate tax rate. These aren’t outliers. They’re patterns.

How It Happens: The Three Main Ways

There are three main paths to regulatory capture, and they often work together.

First, there’s materialist capture-the direct exchange of money or jobs. The revolving door is the most visible sign. Between 2008 and 2018, 53% of senior U.S. Defense Department officials left government and joined defense contractors within a year. The same thing happens at the FDA, EPA, and FAA. Former regulators become lobbyists, consultants, or board members. The industry knows who to call. The regulator knows who to trust. The public loses.

Second, there’s cultural capture. This is harder to spot because no money changes hands. Regulators spend years working with the same companies, attending the same conferences, reading the same technical reports. They start to see the world through the industry’s eyes. They think, “This is how things are done.” They worry about “stifling innovation” instead of “protecting safety.” A 2021 study found agencies with formal industry advisory committees were 3.7 times more likely to adopt rules that favored industry over public interest.

Third, there’s information asymmetry. Modern industries are complex. Cryptocurrency has over 1,800 technical specs. Pharmaceutical trials involve statistical models most regulators can’t fully evaluate. So agencies rely on data provided by the companies they regulate. If the data is skewed, the regulation is too. The FAA let Boeing employees do 96% of the safety reviews on the 737 MAX. That wasn’t an accident. It was a system designed to outsource oversight to the very people who stood to profit from skipping steps.

Why It’s So Hard to Stop

Regulatory capture thrives because of how power works in democracies.

Think about the sugar industry. U.S. tariffs keep sugar prices three times higher than the global market. Every American household pays about $33 extra a year. That’s $3.9 billion total. But it goes to just 4,318 sugar producers. Each of them gains nearly $300,000 a year. That’s a powerful incentive to lobby, donate, and pressure lawmakers. Meanwhile, the average consumer doesn’t even notice the extra $33. Why would they fight back?

This is the core problem: concentrated benefits, dispersed costs. Industries have everything to gain from capture. The public has little to lose-on paper. But collectively, we lose billions. And we don’t organize.

Industry groups spend 17 times more per person on lobbying than consumer advocates. In the U.S., they give 22 times more in political donations. And agencies with less than 30% congressional oversight are over four times more likely to be captured. Without constant public pressure, regulators drift.

Regulators sit at a revolving door table as corporate data manipulates regulatory documents, a wilted daisy at the center.

Real-World Damage

The consequences aren’t abstract. They’re in your wallet, your health, and your safety.

In energy, the UK’s OFGEM approved $17.8 billion in rate hikes for network upgrades between 2015 and 2020-while allowing energy companies to keep profit margins at 11.2%, far above the 6.8% limit. That’s money pulled straight from household bills.

In pharmaceuticals, former FDA officials who joined private companies after leaving government were linked to a 28-day average delay in enforcement actions. Meanwhile, 73% of former EPA officials who moved to industry between 2010 and 2020 took jobs with fossil fuel companies. The same people who were supposed to protect air and water now help companies avoid stricter rules.

And then there’s the FAA and Boeing. After the 737 MAX crashes killed 346 people, investigations revealed the agency had delegated nearly all safety reviews to Boeing engineers. That’s not oversight. That’s delegation of responsibility to the party with the most to gain from skipping safety checks.

Who’s Fighting Back?

Some places are trying to fix this.

Canada introduced mandatory “Regulatory Integrity Training” for public servants. The result? Industry meetings got 27% shorter, and consultations with consumer groups jumped 43%. New Zealand rewrote its entire regulatory process to require independent review before any new rule is drafted. Between 2016 and 2022, industry-preferred regulations dropped from 68% to 31%.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission launched its own “Regulatory Capture Initiative” in March 2023, creating a new Office of Regulatory Integrity with a $23 million budget. It requires full disclosure of all industry contacts and bans former regulators from lobbying their old agency for five years.

The European Union now requires that at least 40% of members on industry advisory panels must represent consumers, not corporations. France’s “Citizen Convention on Climate” brought together randomly selected citizens to draft climate policy-bypassing industry lobbyists entirely. The result? Energy sector influence on policy dropped by 52%.

Citizens carry glowing petitions through a stormy city, fighting shadows of corporate giants swallowing safety signs.

What Can You Do?

You don’t need to be a policymaker to fight regulatory capture.

- Know the names. Who’s on the board of the EPA? The FDA? The FCC? Track who’s moving between government and industry. Public Citizen and OpenSecrets.org track revolving door movements.

- Speak up. When a new regulation is proposed, comment on it. Most people don’t. But if 500 people write in, regulators notice. Consumer groups often draft sample comments-use them.

- Support watchdogs. Organizations like Public Citizen, the Center for Responsive Politics, and the Government Accountability Project rely on donations. Their reports expose capture before it becomes a scandal.

- Vote for accountability. Ask candidates: “Will you support independent oversight of regulatory agencies?” “Will you ban revolving door lobbying?” Don’t accept vague promises. Demand specifics.

Is It Hopeless?

No. But it won’t fix itself.

Regulatory capture isn’t inevitable. It’s a design flaw-one that can be patched. The problem isn’t that regulators are corrupt. It’s that the system rewards them for being cozy. Change the incentives, and you change the behavior.

The same agencies that failed to stop the 2008 crash now have new rules. The FAA is slowly rebuilding its inspection staff. The EU is forcing more consumer voices into the room. Countries with strong transparency laws and independent audit bodies have significantly lower capture rates.

The key is consistency. One whistleblower won’t fix the FAA. One new law won’t end the revolving door. But a steady, public pressure-combined with structural reforms-can shift the balance back to the public interest.

The question isn’t whether capture exists. It’s whether we’re willing to see it-and act before the next crisis hits.