It's a principal-agent problem. If I own one share of Proctor & Gamble, I want PG to earn me as much money as sustainable and feasible. But my care-o-meter is in line with my investment of the current stock price of $153. I'm the principal, and $153 is a rounding error in my portfolio. Meanwhile some wingnut marketing executive at PG may well make $250k/yr *and* get invited to all the socialist cool kids parties if she shoves some Woke Politics into PG ads. She's the agent, and she's *supposed* to be acting in my best interests. However, her incentive to line her own pockets are massively greater than mine. If I double my money I wouldnt even notice my portfolio going up $153. If she doubles her money, she's in the 1% and getting feted at socialist groomer parties. Corporations lobbying politicians comes into play not because they're a corporation, but because government has arbitrarily large amounts of power and is an incredibly cost effective investment. $50k is a rounding error for a corporate budget, but it will buy millions of dollars in government largesse. If government wasn't a behemoth, lobbying it wouldnt be profitable. It'd be like donating $50k to the election fund for a PTA candidate. It'd be a losing investment because the PTA doesnt have tax gibs to hand out. You generally dont see principal-agent problems outside of government because most other examples are *illegal* or simply not worth the risk. E.g. the Dylan Mulvaney Marketing Executive solely did it because the government shields her from prosecution. She wouldnt do it for something non-political like "See how wonderful dogfighting is" because she'd be slammed with a civil lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty and bankrupted inside of 6 months.