Is there any evidence that companies (or rather senior staff at those companies) knowingly do that, or is it simply that once some innovation results in a new, large market, a government tries to get involved?
There is a substantial literature documenting regulatory capture in the modern bureaucratic state, but the business model dates back centuries. This is almost like asking for evidence of air.
I think this is conflating two phenomenon. The parent poster was asking:
Do companies push for the creation regulatory bodies to stifle competition?
Whereas regulatory capture is the process by which companies shape existing regulatory bodies to serve their interests. But it presumes the existence of a body to regulate them; regulatory capture can't occur if there isn't regulation to start with.
You make a good point here that it's not obvious if it's the tail wagging or the dog. I suspect it's both.
This paper may be interesting further reading on the topic of regulatory moats specifically. (I saw your comment below discussing regulatory capture vs this specific subset of capture.)
