moving on, who can give me an explanation?

if a politician decides to introduce a new law, after being approached by a particular corporation, why is that then not examined first to see if the new law would give an unfair advantage in any way to that corporation, if there would be any adverse affects on the general public in any way and whether the person that was asked to introduce the new law had gained/would gain from it in some way or other? if a new law goes through and it is discovered that there was a hidden agenda or the reason for the law was to do something different to what it was supposed to do, why can it not then be repealed?

i do not for 1 second believe that 99% of new laws are scrutinized before introduction or that those introducing them do so for any other reason than personal benefit. bear in mind that those introducing the new laws are suppose to be working for the good of the people, it was the people, not the corporations, that got them their position in government and it is the people that can get them out of that position.