That would be a problem, and it may be the case in the UK, I'm not familiar with their legal institutions, in the US the only people empowered to 'write' laws are elected legislators.
Now some will say "Corporations elect legislators" except that isn't true at all, at least not in California. The only thing corporations and so called 'super pacs' can do is throw money at getting someone elected, and Meg Whitman proved that no matter how much money you throw at it you can't buy an election (at least not yet). The thing that gets bad politicians elected in California is voter apathy, you see most of our election races are decided by a few percent of the counted vote, and the counted vote is nearly always less than 60% of the registered voters, and sometimes less than 50%. In a number of races each year the incumbent runs unopposed or against an opponent who has no interest in actually being elected. If a small fraction of those apathetic voters actually voted, they could remove any and all of the incumbent politicians. But they don't. And they often don't because they have been told that their votes don't count, and that all of the elections are rigged by who has the most money. And that is something the corporations who like it this way, are very good at doing. Getting 'news' stories out to the voters about just how ineffective and worthless their votes are so don't bother getting out of bed, just stay home, it won't matter anyway.
The 99% could effect instant regime change in the US by actually voting. And they don't. And yes that is society's problem as you so aptly point out. But it has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism.
Theres another side to the voter apathy story though, which you haven't fairly covered.
The choice a voter makes can't just be arbituary (i.e., flip a coin to vote). If they are to make an informed decision, it will require investment in effort and time. The voters that are most apathetic are more likely to be poor, and won't have time to invest in such endeavours. Obviously, this perpetuates the problem, but the cause is that, in the mind of the apathetic voter, their time is better spent making money, or making the most of their spare time to have fun, instead of the chore of working out who to vote for.
There is no answer to this problem, as it is a problem with the mindset - they do consider their other activities more important, but they do so because they just don't have the resources to invest in civic activities.
Perhaps, allow me to offer a counter argument. I claim that if the only criteria a voter uses in voting is "I like how your part of the government is working", vote the incumbent. If they don't like how its going, vote someone else. Very simple, no research, no time wasted at all. And absolutely effective.
The reason its effective is because elections in the US are very bias sensitive, the very small margins of victory for one candidate or another means that a small change in voter sympathy can change the outcome of the election. Further, by creating a selection criteria of 'like' / 'don't like' in the voter input, you set up a genetic algorithm for evolving government.
There a probably a couple of dozen 'evolution simulators' available on the web. They all work in the same way, they take a population of organisms, they exist for a while in an environment, and then they 'reproduce' with a selection bias. Over a few generations the selection bias results in a population that demonstrates the characteristic that the selection bias is targeted toward. The basic mechanism is that organisms that align with the selection bias 'win' (and thus reproduce) and those that don't align 'die.'
That algorithm doesn't care what the 'lifeform' is, and it always works. That is part of the reason it annoys folks who favor an intelligent design theory of evolution.
Elections are the 'reproduction' cycle of politicians. Their 'survival' depends on them managing the bias in their favor which they have a limited amount of power to do. If the current non-voting block of citizens jumped into the game and voted 'like'/'do not like' it would force government to 'evolve' a set of politicians that were doing a good job as defined by the people who vote.
Clearly this doesn't work when the government is rigging the elections (as Russia was accused of doing to counter unexpected voter turnout) but it certainly does in a fair election.
Now some will say "Corporations elect legislators" except that isn't true at all, at least not in California. The only thing corporations and so called 'super pacs' can do is throw money at getting someone elected, and Meg Whitman proved that no matter how much money you throw at it you can't buy an election (at least not yet). The thing that gets bad politicians elected in California is voter apathy, you see most of our election races are decided by a few percent of the counted vote, and the counted vote is nearly always less than 60% of the registered voters, and sometimes less than 50%. In a number of races each year the incumbent runs unopposed or against an opponent who has no interest in actually being elected. If a small fraction of those apathetic voters actually voted, they could remove any and all of the incumbent politicians. But they don't. And they often don't because they have been told that their votes don't count, and that all of the elections are rigged by who has the most money. And that is something the corporations who like it this way, are very good at doing. Getting 'news' stories out to the voters about just how ineffective and worthless their votes are so don't bother getting out of bed, just stay home, it won't matter anyway.
The 99% could effect instant regime change in the US by actually voting. And they don't. And yes that is society's problem as you so aptly point out. But it has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism.