If this was the Warren of 15 years ago I'd be with her 100%. Somewhere along the line she went full tilt on social issues and I think is pandering to the hard left more than she needs to on that and her financial proposals. I used to love her aggressive and no bullshit nature when dealing with financial institutions back then. Finding it difficult to take her seriously these days.
Until the activists don't like the court ruling and start crying to their representatives who never can seem to muster up the courage to say no to a bunch of whiney bitches.
Motive is to keep the existing power structure in place. You can read about this yourself. Just pick up some Chomsky.
You wrote "[the government] just wants to regulate and control." Whether the result of regulation and control is good or evil, regulation and control in itself can not be the raison d'être for government, as your statement implies. If you believe government is bad, you will help create bad government.
This could become, I suppose, a motive of both good and bad governments. If it is a motive of good government, then it is good. If it is a motive of bad government, then it is a bad. At least your answer makes more sense than C.O.'s. Pleased to learn that you read Chomsky, who has much of value to teach us.
The House, in our current Government, has passed bills that would go far toward achieving your desired ends. But some important legislation originated in the House has not been brought to the floor of the Senate for discussion and vote. The Senate's failure to act is a violation of the Constitution which implicitly charges the Senate with responsibility to act on Bills originated in the House. Implicit in Article I of the Constitution is the assumption that both bodies (House and Senate) will consider all bills requiring concurrence of both bodies before being passed on to the President. The failure of the Senate to fulfill its implicit duty is a failure of our present government. You can help correct the situation by using your vote accordingly.