It might also be contrasted with how regulation, economic or otherwise, doesn't eliminate corruption or scams, contrary to the view propagated by media sources. If these accusations turn out to be true, it could mean regulators turned a blind eye to events they knew were illegal anticipating Hillary would win the election.
Well first, corruption and scams could be considered somewhat similar, but they exist on two completely different planes. This issue has nothing at all to do with regulations or their efficacy against scams in my opinion -- corruption aims to outright circumvent regulations through abuse of power after all.
Second, do media sources ever claim that regulation
eliminates anything? We have laws against corruption and against fraud, but does anyone really ever believe, for one second, that they eliminate them? I would have to go with no,
but, they help. This particular case would be a non-issue if there were no regulations against money laundering (or corruption) in place, for one.
Third, I feel like the first article you shared is too one-sided:
"A provision of federal campaign finance law requires that any Commission action on an enforcement matter be kept strictly confidential until the case is resolved," an FEC statement to Fox News states. "To comply with this legal commitment and to protect the interests of those involved, we have a policy of not commenting on matters that are before the agency."
If there's an open investigation, I don't think that counts as turning a blind eye.
