Sounds like the Coastal Commission in 70's Kalifornia (and maybe to this very day, I just don't care anymore).
When I can't take it anymore, I tend to tilt at those who by default think that a person espousing the liberal view of a matter is a pure-as-the-driven-snow "activist", while a conservative MUST have some conflict of interest. Global Warming grants are the perfect example. There is actually MORE opportunity for service of self-interest on the liberal side. Naysayers are constantly vilified. Any sane person looking to sell his opinion to the highest bidder would definitely choose the pro-AGW side, yet it's the anti's that must bear the stain of an assumed lack of integrity.
Another observation (and an incredibly obvious one): The companies run by the protagonists are all named after them (Taggart, Rearden, Wyatt, Marsh, Nielsen, Dannager), while the ones run by mealy-mouths like Mowen or Boyle have vague universal names like "Amalgamated..." or "Associated...". Like I said, this should be obvious, but it just struck me this week.
Well, they do have a history of "targeting" individuals..... first on a small, then massive scale.
I hear project X will have 4 million "shovel ready jobs" soon.
Think about the ubiquitous Environmental Impact Statement. Every time anything is to be built, you need to file that statement. Today, if Dagny were to re-engineer the Rio Norte Line, there would have been at least one environmental study comducted by a politically connected consulting firm before a spade of earth could be turned. That study would have cost a bundle and taken at least a year to perform.