If you want regular prosecution of white-collar crimes, you may want to support better funding for these agencies, so they can actually put resources behind investigating and trying cases where criminality occurs.
I think most of the government agencies problems has nothing to do with their budget, but how they run themselves.
How much research and experimentation is being done in those areas?
Yes, but I think this is more metaphorical than literal. Of course there aren't literal automatic robots doing the work of rooting out corruption; it's a goal.
I would argue that a high-functioning justice system should appear as close to automatic as possible, in order to most effectively create a sense of "if I do wrong, I know that I will be punished" rather than "if I do wrong, I need to figure out how to get around the law."
I probably seem pedantic, but I think it's important to reiterate the scale of human involvement and imperfection underpinning the entire system in which we exist. The solution to that is not "take the humans out of it", but to iterate that system with incremental improvements and fund it to the level commensurate with its importance to our society.
It hasn't always been this way [1]. There have been controversial candidates at times throughout history, but most candidates got supermajority votes. In modern times, things are incredibly, abnormally polarized.
[1] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtN...
I don't think people realize just how much of law and regulatory enforcement is dependent on "who knows who" in the white collar world. A lot of investigations are discretionary and it is surprisingly easy for prosecutors to simply not address something. Would more funding help? I'm sure it would have some impact. But if Martin Shkreli was a big time political donor I suspect things would have turned out differently.