Page 5. 
Your Right to Know: A Citizen's Guide to the Freedom of Information Act, 2nd Edition
                                    
“Two main alternative views of the regulation of industry are widely held. The first is that regulation is instituted primarily for the protection and benefit of the public at large or some large subclass of the public. In this view, the regulations which injure the public -as when the oil import quotas increase the cost of petroleum products to America by $5 billion or more a year- are costs of some social goal (here, national defense) or, occasionally, perversions of the regulatory philosophy. the second view is essentially that the political process defies rational explanation: "politics" is an imponderable, a constantly and unpredictably shifting mixture of forces of the most diverse nature, comprehending acts of great moral virtue (the emancipation of slaves) and of the most vulgar venality”
            the congressman feathering his own nest 
Source: "The theory of economic regulation," 1971, p. 3
        
Help us to complete the source, original and additional information
George Stigler 20
American economist 1911–1991Related quotes
“The public power to confront these errors of industry is government regulation.”
                                        
                                        Source: Interview (4 November 1994) quoted in Backlash Global Subversion of the Environmental Movement (1996), p. 51 
Context: You can go to any major history and see the effect of unregulation. The very point of developing regulation around industrial society was that they were not only exploiting the workers to death they were befouling the planet, so regulation came because of that. What the right wing wants is for the public to have this role in the societal debate over balance of these issues and no power. The public power to confront these errors of industry is government regulation.
                                    
Tyson and Brother v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418, 451 (1927).
                                        
                                        Letter to Princess Lieven (18 August 1828), reprinted in Guy Le Strange (ed.), Correspondence of Princess Lieven and Earl Grey. Volume I: 1824 to 1830 (London: Richard Bentley and Son, 1890),  p. 130. 
1820s
                                    
Source: A Treatise On Political Economy (Fourth Edition) (1832), Book I, On Production, Chapter XVII, Section II, p. 181
Harmeet Dhillon: ‘It’s a Great Time to Be a Tech Lobbyist’ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/03/28/harmeet-dhillon/ (Mar 27, 2018)
“Some people view the public domain with contempt.”
                                        
                                        Free Culture (2004) 
Context: Some people view the public domain with contempt. In their brief before the Supreme Court, the Nashville Songwriters Association wrote that the public domain is nothing more than "legal piracy." But it is not piracy when the law allows it; and in our constitutional system, our law requires it. Some may not like the Constitution's requirements, but that doesn't make the Constitution a pirate's charter.
As we've seen, our constitutional system requires limits on copyright as a way to assure that copyright holders do not too heavily influence the development and distribution of our culture. Yet, as Eric Eldred discovered, we have set up a system that assures that copyright terms will be repeatedly extended, and extended, and extended. We have created the perfect storm for the public domain. Copyrights have not expired, and will not expire, so long as Congress is free to be bought to extend them again.