Their motives are three-fold.
First they are animated by a moral opposition to profit seeking per se. They call it 'greed' because they can't imagine an intellectual or moral defense of self-interest so they prefer to describe the pursuit of profit and the pursuit of happiness in emotional terms, 'greed'. (Remember this distinction when you consider similar controversies described in emotional rather than intellectual terms, e.g. 'hate', 'hope', 'compassion'.) They are opposed to businessmen changing their activities in an attempt to make more money.
Second they wish to protect their cronies in business who aren't able enough to make good decisions, like moving to more business friendly regulatory environments, businesses that instead thrive on government protections, handouts, and loan guarantees. Think of pre-nationalized GM here, that didn't have the brains, balls or perhaps the legal ability to move to the more business friendly southern states, while Toyota et al. were doing well there. By preventing any further changes the regulators hope to keep their cronies in business while together they, the government and crony businessmen, pick over the carcass of the dying economy. They can only imagine redistributing wealth, not creating it.
Third they wish to prevent the irrationality of their existing policies from becoming evident. If businessmen are allowed to change, move, or quit in response to the disincentives of current regulations, the harmful effects of those regulations become clear to all. California politicians are starting to panic over all the businesses and individuals that are moving to Texas. And unions have always been upset that businesses could move to 'right-to-work' states that recognize some elements of free employer-employee relationships in opposition to
Straight out of the pages of Atlas Shrugged Obama-appointed Lafe Solomon has filed a complaint on behalf of the NLRB contending that Boeing must manufacture 787 Dreamliner airplanes in Washington, a non-right-to-work state, rather than completing a new plant in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. Thus by regulatory fiat the NLRB might soon declare that its illegal to move to a freer state to do business. Can you hear the shackles clicking closed on your legs? By what right? By what right does a government bureaucrat dictate where we can work?
Those of you who have read Atlas Shrugged know why this is happening (collectivism and altruism). Those of you that haven't, might want to pick it up to get an idea of the destructive moral power behind these kinds of directives and what they'll lead to if we do nothing about it.