First, if success is defined by profit, then where do advocacy for justice, safety, and protecting the commons fit in? They are just as important for government to hear about as profit-generating business interests.<p>Second, that argument sounds like Laissez-Faire economics, where those who succeed are enabled to succeed more. In practice, it leads to imbalances and winner-take-all problems:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Laissez-faire#Critiques" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Laissez-faire#Critiques</a><p>On the other hand, excessive regulation can suffocate innovation. So you need a balance. The debate comes when you try to figure out what the balance should be. In academia, that balance includes disclosure, peer-review, and openness. It&#x27;s far from perfect, but we&#x27;re working on it.<p>But this article is mostly about government and policy that is informed by research, and the serious imbalances, information asymmetries, and lack of voice of non-business interests.