What is that one good thing (among others)?  It is that his exit is potentially a blow to the US Chamber of Commerce, that supposedly “conservative” group of business leaders who are really not conservative except in a very limited sense.  Here is what is going on.

The Chamber has decided it will spend over $100 million dollars this election cycle to defeat candidates who are in their view “too conservative.”  Mike Flynn has a very interesting article in Breitbart News (October 1, 2015) in which he explains what the goal of the Chamber and its allies is.  It seems the Chamber strongly endorses open immigration, even of illegals, does not care about Federal deficits and debt, and wants to lower the corporate income tax rate (but cares little about the individual rate or any other major tax reform).  The only clear free market position (and it is limited) is the lower corporate tax rate.

Why does it take these positions?  Its generally laissez faire attitude to illegal immigration is obvious—cheap labor of the illegals.  Businesses can lower the general wage rate because the illegals (they believe) will be willing to work for less.  It is a simple matter of a market for wages, or is it?  Now let me say I am not per se opposed to a market-determined wage rate.  But the cost of illegal immigration must also be considered.  And there are several costs.  First is the possibility of higher crime brought with some illegals, though of course we also must account for crime among legal immigrants and our own citizens.  Still, without background checks, we only add to the crime problem.  Second, we have seen the recent statistics that the majority of illegal immigrants seek and receive welfare services.  Again, our citizens do also, but will we add to that number, especially if those illegal immigrants pay no taxes in return (actually I would advocate a severe reduction in all welfare to all people).  Third, there is an issue of assimilation, or not.

Now as to legal immigration, that is a harder case.  My general position (which I also believe is supportable in the Christian Scriptures) is a very free immigration policy, but augmented by strict background checks to prevent criminals and possible terrorists.  Immigration, though significantly more open, must be legal and carefully monitored.  On that, my sympathies are generally with the Chamber as it concerns the outcome,  But I am skeptical of the Chamber’s commitment to screening.  That is a problem.

Federal spending is not apparently on the radar of the Chamber.  This may be due to its indifference to Obamacare and also its support of the Import-Export Bank, a pool of cronyism if there ever was one.  Most large businesses can afford Obamacare, at least for now, and if they believe they get more goodies by not opposing it, they will continue to ignore it.  The same goes for the massive and stifling regulations that affect small businesses much more than large ones.  The Federal government in the eyes of large business is only an inconvenience, but it both takes from business in terms of freedom to be creative and productive, without a necessary positive benefit in return, and at the same time, spends huge amounts on regulatory enforcement.  And it takes much more proportionately from smaller firms.  In addition, large firms can lobby for exceptions from regulations, and even for favors in the form of subsidies and tax breaks.  Cronyism again.

With regard to tax reform, thankfully the Chamber does support tax reform, but I am curious as to what kind.  If it wants lower rates for all, that is a good thing.  We have the highest corporate rate in the world now.  It too stifles innovation and productivity and also prevents or eliminates jobs.  It reduces human flourishing.  But we also have some fairly high individual rates.  Does the Chamber only support lowering the corporate rate?  Does it even support that, or does it just want more of the kinds of tax breaks that really amount to cronyism?

The Chamber is spending quite a bit of money to oppose conservative candidates on these issues.  I wonder how they will feel if they succeed in getting their candidates in office and then find that those people now turn against them as representing the evil, big businesses?  Of course, if their candidates are elected, perhaps the Chamber will in fact get what it wants—apparently more cronyism.  But the real question is whether getting the Chamber’s candidates into office would be for the common good?  At any rate, Adam Smith warned us many years ago:

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” (Wealth of Nations, 1776)

The US Chamber of Commerce is just one giant trade association, made up mostly of large businesses.  Yes, Adam Smith, you are correct, and it applies now.