I am asking about the United States, but this could apply to any democratic country as well. Coming from academic biological sciences, much of our finding comes from institutions like the NIH/DOD/NSF etc. Simplistically this creates an environment where a person or lab that has an idea that requires funding will propose their work in a grant and semi-anonymously submit that to a funding institution. These institutions will then classify the proposal and bin it with other proposals within a similar area of focus. Then a few times each year experts in these areas of focus will convene and compare the proposals and disburse funding to the 'best' grants. The idea is that this granting system helps to fund the most robust projects while limiting any conflicts of interest researchers might have.
So I wonder why the method of political funding is so different from academia. Why is it the case that political candidates are funded by private companies rather than some type of political NIH. I realize taxpayer cost may be a significant factor in this decision, but it seems that while academia puts significant effort into avoiding personal bias and conflicts of interest, politics invites it.
So what is the logic behind the system of political funding in the united states, specifically in regards to why it is advantageous for candidates to receive funding directly from companies which could benefit from their successful bid for office?