I'm trying to understand the specifics of what happened in this particular case. Was it corporate influence? Was it bad policy design? Was it a failure of proce

I'm trying to understand the specifics of what happened in this particular case. Was it corporate influence? Was it bad policy design? Was it a failure of process? None of the above? All of the above? Something else? It's all too easy to cynically handwave and parrot platitudes like "politicians are corrupt", "capitalism is bad", etc. Reality is far more complicated than those overly simplistic platitudes let-on and parroting them doesn't meaningfully contribute to the discussion of what to do better next time. If we want to understand how to implement lasting change through government policy, the context and details matter when seemingly good policies fail.