Final answer:
Controls on corporate crime include a combination of laws and political decisions that regulate corporate behaviors and preserve market competition. However, the challenge lies in the government's ability to regulate every possible wrongdoing, which leads to a continuous evolution of laws and enforcement strategies. The influence of wealth on politics, especially following the Citizens United ruling, has brought concerns regarding the health of the democracy and potential oligarchic trends.
Step-by-step explanation:
The control in place to restrict corporate crime involves a mix of legislation, oversight, and enforcement actions. Legally, this takes the form of anti-monopoly legislation, securities laws, banking regulations, and other relevant statutes aimed at preserving competition and market integrity. Politically, this is a contentious arena because actions by regulators or lawsuits by the government can come under intense pressure from corporations, wealthy individuals, and sometimes political figures, as was seen in decisions such as Citizens United v. FEC.
It is virtually impossible for government to outlaw everything businesses could do wrong due to the sheer complexity of the modern economy and the constantly evolving nature of business practices. Instead, regulators strive to adapt by updating rules, applying a mix of targeted enforcement, market surveillance, and requiring public disclosure to mitigate market failures. Despite reform efforts, such as those in 1971 and 2002, the 2012 Citizens United decision significantly changed the landscape by asserting that campaign contributions from corporations and unions are a form of protected speech.
The influence of concentrated wealth on democratic processes has sparked debates about the emergence of oligarchic tendencies in U.S. politics and the health of the democracy itself. As Paul Krugman succinctly put it, the threat to democracy comes from the increasing concentration of income and wealth in the hands of a few.