Let Us Have a Free Market (Except When it Comes to Consumer Legal Funding!)

President Andrew Jackson once said “The duty of government is to leave commerce to its own capital and credit as well as all other branches of business, protecting all in their legal pursuits, granting exclusive privileges to none.” 

We agree.

What is amazing is that opponents of Consumer Legal Funding are trying to impose rate restrictions on the product for the sole purpose of limiting access for consumers and thereby constraining the Free Market.

Let me explain: The major opposition to Consumer Legal Funding is being driven by the US Chamber of Commerce and the Property and Causality Insurance industry. These are the same organizations that are advocating for Free Market solutions when it comes to pricing of their products. When it comes to their members and the larger insurance industry, they state unequivocally that the Free Market should regulate prices, and not federal or state governments. On the issue of broadband internet speed, the US Chamber was supportive of letting the market determine the final outcome, as outlined in one of their blogs. When the Chamber warned of price controls to the US Senate, it stated: “The Chamber opposes “price controls” of any sort that involve government intervention in the free market, whether by direct government purchase and distribution of products or by less direct means.”

Tom Donohue, the US Chamber of Commerce President is quoted as saying, “We have got to go out in a big-time way and remind all Americans that it was a free enterprise system based on the values of individual initiative, hard work, risk innovation and profit which built our great country.”

So again, why does a Free Market solution work for the members of the Chamber of Commerce and the insurance industry, but not applicable to Consumer Legal Funding? The answer is simple: Consumer Legal Funding allows consumers who are being dragged through a legal claim for months – or even years – the ability to hang on and get the fair and just settlement that they deserve, as opposed to a settlement they are forced to acquiesce to, due to being in a financial bind.

The Free Market shouldn’t only apply to those who can afford it.