I don't know if this question belongs here or in the conundrums section, or even if you can have tolerance between conflicting interests, but I see what you are getting at. The Irony here is that the question is answered with the wording of the question; there is little conflict among the interests of some major corporations that are well connected to the government. The interests of corporations that are not well connected must be tolerant because they have no avenue to remedy their conflict with what is going on, they just have to hold on and tread water until their connections can win political favour, they just accept what is going on. I consider it political arrogance for a government official to exploit their position for the benefit of their own financial interests. Its like they are saying "...I'm doing this to you (the public &/or CEO of competetor) because I have the power to do it, you wont be able to take that power from me for four years, which is plenty of time for me to extract from the system what I need to and I don't care that you know this, I'll just ride off into the sunset 4 years from now with all my money(or reap reward for 4 more)" incedentally this is not just an occurance in governmental politics, but politics in every aspect of our lives; decision makers friends get promotions ahead of more deserving people, less talented sons get picked for the hockey team because dad is well connected, tenders are given to someones brothers snowclearing company, etc., someone deserving is always losing out, its the way the world works and it sucks, especially because some of us are losing out a lot more than others. So you have to have a tolerance because its the way things work, if you harp on it you drive yourself crazy, you've heard the phrase "don't hate the player, hate the game" well count me among those who hate the game ...and damn near all the players! (sorry if I've gone a little far here, the question is really asking for an opinion, I don't know if a factual answer is possible) ****************************************************** EDIT: Hey GR! The question as stated implies that there is very little conflit within the government (granted this is a conclusion drawn by me from the use of the word tolerance) between officials when some hold positions with obvious conflicts of interest. My answer is just a simple commentary on the sad state of politics and the way the world works. The point I was trying to make was that it just seems to be accepted by those who hold office (or the companies & public for that matter) that this is the way things work. Occasionally, (normally is probably a better term) it's best to not rock the boat and wait for their time, things will eventually work in the favor of that politician. If he waits long enough & plays the game, he will eventually get those conflict of interest positions and thus the gravy (they are probably given those positions BECAUSE they hold office) its ALL politics, by the very definition of the word, or at least this is how I define politics. If a politician wanted to he could use a foe's conflict of interest to attempt to take the foe down, but that could also destroy his ability to manipulate the system at a later date, ie he couldn't pull the same thing if he had gotten on the soap-box to take down someone else who did it. Again, this is not dramatically different than any work place that I've ever been involved with...sad but true! This is just an opinion & I think thats all you could ask for on a question like this, thanks for giving me an opportunity to clarify an obviously less than perfectly written answer, I must have been drunk when I wrote it ...I'm kidding! Actually I just read it back to myself, and it sounds like I'm drunk now! It is a difficult thought for me to articulate because there are three parties involved: the politicians, the companies, and the public. The three groups accept what is going on or is helpless to do any thing about it, occasionally things work in your favor because of the system, if you rock the boat too much when things don't go your way, you jeopardise a future opportunity for things to work in your favor, thus there is a tolerance! ...I think thats a better way of putting it!

Because there aren't laws, which prevent this from happening. Quite candidly, I think it should be illegal for corporations to hire lobbying groups, which, in effect, help to prevent many effective laws from being passed. When Republicans are in office, they want tax cuts--tax cuts, which are aimed only at helping the richest of Americans, namely the top 1% of the entire US Population, which is rougly comprised of those, who have a networth of, at least, $1,000,000! People, who really need the tax cuts are those families grossing less than $100k per year. If everyone could make 100k per year by becoming entrepreneurs, doctors, lawyers, business tycoons, inventors, etc., then I am sure that most people would, but NOT everyone has an IQ that is high enough to get into these top-paying positions, which is why most people remain average and poor financially. Until, most Americans become formally-educated, then they will never fully realize that the rich will always control everything because the masses allow them to do so.