valid justification IMO.

There are a lot of things that could be great for state revenue production but the federal government preempts it. If states had no environmental or labor laws for example, cost of production would be lower, which would attract more business and result in higher tax revenues. But the federal government has set floors so states can't compete on these lines because it is destructive.

In addition, there are a lot of things that could be great for revenue but we reject on moral grounds such as prostituion and drugs (rightly or wrongly).

I guess my point is that if something has costs associated with it, then revenue production is not a sufficient justification.

For your second Disney example, you have a point. I am not sure if I agree with it though. Markets work best when there is perfect information. By allowing Disney to hide behind anonymity, the government is interfering with this free-flow of information in the market. Disney definitely benefits, but all of the land-sellers lose out. In a sense, the government is picking winners and losers by allowing anonymity in these situations.

But more fundamentally, even if you are right, why can't the government still require disclosure of the true owner but keep that information private? That way, your Disney rationale would still work AND the government would have a much better mechanism to fight money laundering.