Yes. Those sorts of things are exactly the kind of skullduggery and shenanigans that the term capitalism was invented to be a critique of in the 19th century. The kinds of stuff pulled by the owning classes to secure their position and capital, up to and including influencing, and in some cases usurping, governments.
I guess this would need a new term since the word has been seemingly reclaimed by the capitalists as a good thing.
You are implicitly claiming that corruption, special interests and broken rights protections are unique problems for capitalism, unknown in non-capitalist systems.
A clear eyed look at history makes it evident that if you take away private enterprise what you are left with is pretty much nothing but corruption, special interests and broken rights protections. Just look at the Soviet system, or Chinese state sector, or pretty much any thorough going socialist system ever. In non-capitalist industrial economies corruption isn't just a problem with the system, it is the system.
The trick is to guarantee not just private rights to capital, but private rights full stop. Rights of ownership and economic freedoms for private citizens, sure, but also political rights, legal rights, labour rights. The full package. Capitalism on it's own isn't enough, and in fact without individual legal and political rights it's not possible to sustain meaningful individual rights to capital anyway.
A good case in point in the Oligarchic system in Russia. In theory that's a capitalist system, but actually it's not. In practice individual citizens in Russia don't have meaningful capital and economic rights, if they actually try to fund and start a company that genuinely challenges the incumbents they get torn apart by the incumbents. Real capitalism means full individual rights over capital, but as with any other right that can only exist in a broadly free society.
I guess this would need a new term since the word has been seemingly reclaimed by the capitalists as a good thing.