Not legal issues in the sense issues contested in court, rather they mean to say the combination of regulations and compliance to state laws that any business particularly a large one with significant physical footprint[1] would need to comply with. Politicians are in the business of passing and enforcing those laws or giving exceptions to compliance.

[1] A lot of less permits would be needed for 10,000 member software company compared to a rocket launch provider or a manufacturing unit.

> Politicians are in the business of passing and enforcing those laws or giving exceptions to compliance.

I think this is what's confusing me - I'd expect politicians to pass laws, but enforcement might be the job of police, tax authorities, workplace safety inspectors, etc.

And giving politicians say over who laws apply to sounds like a fast track to corruption.

It is a fast track to corruption without a strong independent judiciary yes.

politicians have a dual role they are the legislative authority and also are the executive (when in power) . They don’t do those roles concurrently but the same people switch between those two.

The actual execution happens by police lawyers or tax authorities as you say, but the direction and leadership is set by the politicians. When to prosecute, whom to and what punishment to ask for and so on.

In the US system there is additional complexity as what are nominally administrative positions like judge, sheriff etc also elected. So by definition those people also have to be politicians.

Because politicians make laws, and those affect the "legal hurdles" that companies need to deal with.

Who do you imagine writes laws?

Policy wonks?

Policy wonks write model bills. What actually gets passed on the floor eventually, with all the amendments, is not the same thing, usually.