I examine how two selection systems for regulators, election and appointment, affect outcomes in a market with multiple firms. Traditional theory suggests that elected regulators are pro-consumers, while appointed regulators are pro-industry. I scrap the website of a major firm to collect individual-level data on premiums paid on auto insurance policies. I show that elected regulators choose policies salient for most consumers (lower premiums) in contrast to appointed regulators. This impact is larger and statistically significant in the counties where a majority of state’s population is concentrated. This result is confirmed by the state-level data. I also show that competition between firms ensures that firms offer a better product (higher payments on claims filed by policyholders) in states with appointed commissioners. Hence, in a market with multiple firms, an elected regulator offers a bundle of lower prices and inferior product, while an appointed regulator does not ensure pro-industry outcomes.