You say you read the article but I don't think you understood it. They want to loosen restrictions so they can sell additional work (that they are currently prohibited to provide) to public clients of which they provide audit services.
I understood it perfectly. They want to provide more services so that they can say "this is out of compliance but pay us money and we can fix it". But their "fix" is just looking over your shoulder and checking a few boxes.
But the other part of what they want is then not have the government looking over their shoulder to see what they did.
I still don't think you understand. They are prohibited from offering consulting services to audit clients which is completely different from 'compliance'. This is about auditor independence rules.
The article states that the Big 4 are lobbying against making PCAOB disciplinary proceedings public. Disciplinary proceedings are and will be in place in the future so i'm not sure where you are getting that they do not want the government looking over their shoulder. Yes, in a perfect world i'm sure they don't want the PCAOB breathing down their neck but it's part and parcel of the job.
