Sorry to say, but this seems like a rather uncharacteristically facile take on the issues - is your contention that *every* regulation is a lobbyist-fueled play for incumbent dominance? This seems dubious, especially considering that your reference to "telecommunications" regulation may well be pointing to the FCC's 'net neutrality' rules, which are arguably anti-incumbent, in that they bar ISPs from parcelling out bandwidth-for-pay. Sure, regulations are often manipulated, watered-down and perverted by incumbent lobbying, even when not directly sought by corporate forces. But that's the nature of contemporary politics - the solutions lies in a compromise between curtailing the access of private citizenry to political machinations (and hoping for an un-Putinesque outcome) and throwing out the entire regulatory and tax framework (and antitrust laws) and trusting the forces of competition to enforce the pricing of externalities and police the kind of overreach that large companies can defend via highly staffed PR, advertising and legal teams (a libertarian fantasy, not serious conservatism).

Was nothing in Dodd-Frank actually worth doing, even if some of it turns out to be misguided? Even Romney thinks "Some of the concepts in Dodd-Frank have a place" - if so, then the question shifts to one of appropriate regulation, not anti-regulation.