Sunday, May 27, 2007

Why don't the big corporations fund Ron Paul?

This is a question that begs an answer. Ron Paul is for a non-interventionist foreign policy, deregulation, reduction in taxes, and a reduction in spending, all things that are conducive to economic growth and a market economy, so why don't more corporations fund his campaign?

Here is an excellent description of Ron Paul's idealogical "pedigree" from free market news:

Ron Paul is a deeply read man, probably the most educated candidate to run for high office since, well, how about Thomas Jefferson? That's a strong statement, but likely a true one. Certainly, one could make a case that he is the most learned and deeply read candidate of the 20th century.

What is his pedigree? He was a colleague and close friend of Murray Rothbard, the eminent free-market economist who proved one of Ludwig von Mises most outstanding and febrile pupils. Together, Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard (along with Lew Rockwell) helped define Austrian economics and academic libertarianism in the 20th century.

Rothbard is the author of the sweeping socio-economic masterpiece, "Man and State." Ludwig von Mises is author of numerous deeply learned, works on the free-market. His masterpiece is perhaps "Human Action," in which he sums up a century of "Austrian" free markets economics.

Granted, some very large corporations make alot of money from special interest politics, and have a vested interest in the continuation of such policies, but surely many multi-national corporations could stand to gain from a Ron Paul presidency and an explosion in America's economic growth, no? Where are they? Why aren't they funding him? This is perhaps the most free-market, low tax, small government politician that has ever run for office, and THE PEOPLE SUPPORT HIM. Why aren't the big corporations jumping on this opportunity?

I think there is this pervading notion that the interests of corporations and the people are fundamentally opposed, but I think this is absolutely false. I believe that corporations and the efficiencies they permit have permitted mankind to advance greatly in the last century, and I believe, that the majority of corporations, as with the majority of people, stand to gain from a world of freedom and peace. It is the corporations, and people, who are immersed in special interest pork barrel politics, that stand to gain from big government and government regulation. In other words, it is not a question of corporate interests versus people's interests, but rather, special interests versus the common interest.

The people have spoken: they want a Ron Paul presidency that serves the common interest and a return to prosperity. So where are the corporations?


Anonymous said...

The reason is that RP is not going to hand out favors to corporations so the return on investment is low.

Or maybe it's because they are not interested in a free market.

THAT'S what I think.

KineticReaction said...

I agree with that.

So it's up to the people to save America's corporations because they won't save themselves.

ND said...

To elaborate on anonymous, you're assuming a lot of corporations want a level playing field which is not true. A lot of America's corporations use the government as a tool (actually, more like a weapon) to put up barriers to stifle competition at the expense of the populace. In fact, there are some corporations that would cease to exist without the federal government. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of legitimate corporations that would benefit from a free market but when most people hear the word "corporation", they think of the large part of corporate america who has perfected the act of lobbying elected officials for favors.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, Corporate America is too dishonest for an honest President. It'll take a huge recession for them to wake up

Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike said...

Umm...I guess none of you have contributed to Ron Paul through his election website, or if you did didn't notice?

Says in a couple of places:
"Corporate contributions are prohibited."

So the answer to your question is because Ron Paul refuses their money. :)

Strange to find somebody principled in this day and age, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Mike, well said, well said. Ron Paul just gets better.

Anonymous said...

Much of corporate America is in bed with big government, and this is something that Paul wants to end. In all fairness, it's nearly impossible to be a big rich corporation without being neck deep in government. Big business has to lobby and be on its toes constantly to curry favor and influence. Politicians go after their major donors in the business's a very cozy arrangement. Ron Paul doesn't play that game.

Without using political labels, all those Americans who dislike/distrust corporate America, should be equally concerned about big government, because big government doesn't protect you from runaway corporate greed. The problem has never been capitalism, it's been various degrees of fascism. When government and business are in bed together you never really know who's on top, but you do know who's getting screwed.

Bob Cassiday said...

If I really thought Ron Paul was that tough on corporations I'd lighten up on him a bit. I hate big corporations being so involved in politics.