Topic: Corporate America
“Those who run our so-called American corporations have bent to the will of the woke agenda and care more for their foreign investors and organizations than their American workers and customers. Today, nearly every top-tier U.S. university president or Wall Street hedge fund manager has more in common with a socialist, European head of state than with the parents at a high school football game in Waco, Texas.”
That’s fairly rich, coming from the party who supports a “billionaire” who inherited his money and has absolutely nothing in common with average Americans. He goes on to shit on the UN and the EU, citing “signing international treaties on pharmaceutical patents, climate change, and childrens’ rights” as something he’s egregiously offended by. (Page 42, paragraph 6.)
He then baselessly claims that the Left supports open borders (they don’t, and Trump killed bipartisan legislation recently that would have alleviated problems at the border by telling Republicans not to vote for it so he could continue to campaign on the issue. [Source]
Full contextual analysis of the foreword here.
“Corporate America, technology companies, research institutions, and academia must be willing, educated partners in this generational fight to protect our national security interests, economic interests, national sovereignty, and intellectual property as well as the broader rules-based order—all while avoiding the tendency to cave to the left-wing activists and investors who ignore the China threat and increasingly dominate the corporate world.”
He’s suggesting here that industries involved in areas like cutting-edge technology and intellectual property are susceptible to foreign influence and theft, especially from China, so they must be mindful of that possibility (true). The mention of investors implies concern that financial motivations in China or from Chinese partnerships might outweigh considerations of national security or ethical concerns in corporate decision-making. It does seem disingenuous for Carmack to point fingers at the Left for making ethically dubious business decisions involving with China when Ivanka Trump received 41 fast-tracked trademarks from China after her father was elected President.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.4: Intelligence Community here.
“God ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest, and until very recently the Judeo-Christian tradition sought to honor that mandate by moral and legal regulation of work on that day. Moreover, a shared day off makes it possible for families and communities to enjoy time off together, rather than as atomized individuals, and provides a healthier cadence of life for everyone. Unfortunately, that communal day of rest has eroded under the pressures of consumerism and secularism, especially for low-income workers.”
Our capitalist economy will never go for that, but it’s an interesting idea. He incentivizes it by making it more expensive to make people work on a Sunday:
“Congress should encourage communal rest by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to require that workers be paid time and a half for hours worked on the Sabbath.” (Project 2025, Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies, Jonathan Berry, page 621, paragraph 3.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies here.
“Overtime requirements may discourage employers from offering certain fringe benefits such as reimbursement for education, childcare, or even free meals because the benefits’ value may be included in the “regular rate” that must be paid at 150 percent for all overtime hours.”
The idea that employers would offer child care if they didn’t have to pay overtime is…certainly an opinion. I’m guessing a total of ZERO employers would do this out of the goodness of their hearts. They’d simply pocket the extra overtime money and offer no additional benefits.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.9: Department of Labor and Related Agencies here.
“Congress should repeal the Corporate Transparency Act, and FinCEN should withdraw its poorly written and overbroad beneficial ownership reporting rule.”
This one is transparently (if you’ll excuse the pun) evil. The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), passed in 2021, requires U.S. companies to disclose their beneficial ownership information – that is, the individuals who own or control them – to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). The goal of the law is to combat money laundering, tax evasion, and illicit financial activities by increasing transparency regarding company ownership structures. The CTA mainly targets shell companies used to hide illicit financial dealings.
The CTA is also seen as an essential tool for disrupting networks involved in human trafficking, narcotics, and terrorism financing.
So if we reduce oversight of this, what’s going to happen? Increased financial and other crimes, and decreased law enforcement visibility into it and capability of prosecuting it – with no visibility, it’s a LOT harder to prove the law was broken.
Full contextual analysis of Section 4.2: Department of the Treasury here.
“[Congress should] Repeal the Dodd–Frank mandated disclosures relating to conflict minerals, mine safety, resource extraction, and CEO pay ratios.”
This would remove requirements to disclose information about issues like conflict minerals, mine safety, resource extraction, and CEO pay ratios. This loss of transparency could weaken consumer trust or investor interest in companies tied to ethical concerns. It also sidesteps environmental concerns.
Full contextual analysis of Section 5.1: Financial Regulatory Agencies here.
“Beyond antitrust injury, we are witnessing in today’s markets the use of economic power—often market and perhaps even monopoly power—to undermine democratic institutions and civil society. Practices such as Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) requirements on publicly traded corporations and their inclusion in business agreements, the so-called “de-banking” of industries and individuals, and the interference of large internet firms with democratic political discourse undermine liberal democracy, a truly open society, and, indeed, rule of law. Without rule of law, markets themselves will wither.”
Candeub is arguing here that corporations are using their economic power in ways that could threaten democracy itself, but fails to give any examples of what he’s talking about. He criticizes the use of ESG criteria, which are standards for measuring a company’s environmental impact, social responsibility, and governance practices. He suggests that when these requirements are imposed on corporations, they can interfere with free markets and limit business decisions.
“De-banking” refers to the practice of financial institutions refusing to offer services to certain industries or individuals. He gives no examples of this, either.
Candeub also refers to the influence of big tech companies in shaping or moderating political discourse, seeming to argue that when these companies control or influence public debate, it can harm democratic processes and civil liberties.
He concludes by warning that these practices, if unchecked, could erode the fundamental principles of liberal democracy (such as free speech, open markets, and equal access) and the rule of law. In his view, without a stable legal framework that applies fairly to everyone, markets themselves will suffer, potentially leading to economic instability.
I couldn’t find a single example of a U.S. Bank “De-banking” an entire industry, and the cited examples of individuals being “de-banked” occurred mostly in Canada and the U.K.
Full contextual analysis of Section 5.4: Federal Trade Commission here.
“Business managers appropriate shareholder wealth when they use corporate resources to further their personal political beliefs, even when pursuing what they consider a “socially responsible” or “moral” agenda. The business of American business is business, not ideology.”
I don’t buy this argument. Nobody forces shareholders to invest in one company or another. If you disagree with one company’s philosophy, you don’t have to give them money. It’s called voting with your wallet.
Business ethicists call this the “separation fallacy” – the idea that business can be separated from ethics (they argue that it can’t.) I could definitely make an argument that business practices which are harmful to the environment or to consumers in the name of profit are unethical. At heart, humans are social creatures. Most of us don’t want to have relationships with – or do business with – people that we perceive as unethical.
Full contextual analysis of Section 5.4: Federal Trade Commission here.
“Managers who insert their own values into underwriting agreements, contracts for professional services, or other business transactions coopt shareholder value for their own personal utility.”
Another argument for the separation of business from ethics.
Full contextual analysis of Section 5.4: Federal Trade Commission here.
“As a corollary, businesses that make general offers of service to the public forego profits by refusing to service a lawful activity, i.e., fossil fuel extraction or gun manufacturing, raising similar concerns. When banks or internet platforms refuse customers based on their political or social views (as distinguished from religious views), they forgo profits.”
Candeub is arguing here that businesses, particularly banks or internet platforms, may be foregoing profits and potentially engaging in discriminatory practices by refusing to provide services to lawful industries like fossil fuel extraction or gun manufacturing based on political or social views. The concern is that such refusals could undermine market fairness and raise ethical issues, as these businesses are selectively excluding certain activities or customers, not on legal grounds but on ideological ones, which may conflict with principles of free commerce.
Again, no examples are provided of either a bank or an internet platform refusing service to an entire industry. The bigger question is, can private businesses operate as they see fit, or can’t they? The right to refuse service is well-established. Is 7-11 “discriminating against” people who have objections to wearing shirts and shoes? No. It’s “No shirt, no shoes, no service.” Restaurants often post publicly that they have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The authors of Project 2025 are a bit all over the place on this point. You can’t champion the idea that businesses should operate independently of most government regulation, then turn around and regulate who they’re allowed to do business with or the social and ethical practices they wish to follow.
I will point out here that it’s not that Candeub simply isn’t in the habit of providing examples. Every single time he brings up social media censorship, he cites the erroneous and debunked idea that the Biden Administration attempted to censor political views on Facebook and Twitter. This leads me to believe that since he hasn’t provided examples of the other things he’s claiming are problems, it’s because no such examples of these problems exist; debunked or no.
Full contextual analysis of Section 5.4: Federal Trade Commission here.