Q&A: Libertarian Gubernatorial candidate Donald Rainwater

Four years ago, Libertarian Donald Rainwater ran for Governor and took a sizable 11% of the vote with him. But even with a steep cut of the electorate, Rainwater proved little chance against Republican incumbent Eric Holcomb.

With the incumbent stepping away and an open seat for the taking, he’s back in the race to make his bid to be the first Libertarian governor in the state.

With just a little bit more than a month until election day, Rainwater sat down with the Exponent to explain his policy agenda, the challenges he faces running as a Libertarian and his stances on local issues.

Q: Can you introduce yourself?

My name is Donald Rainwater. I'm the libertarian candidate for governor here in the state of Indiana. I ran for governor in 2020, (I) am running again because I still don't see a candidate running for governor who is focused on individual rights and individual Hoosiers, Hoosier households, small businesses and family farms. So I believe that all of those folks need a voice and I think I've got a pretty loud one. I believe that I represent the people who are definitely underrepresented today in our state government, which is our individual citizen.

Q: On your website, the biggest thing I noticed was your policies on the economy, specifically your solutions to our economic situation, which is tax reductions and eliminations. Explain to me why this topic is particularly important to you and why these solutions might help the state of Indiana as well.

Let me start with the fact that I hear a lot today, whether it be economists or the news media talking about how well the economy is doing. When they talk about that, they're talking about it from metrics that are designed to reflect how large corporations are doing. How the GDP is doing. These don't reflect how the individual households in the state of Indiana are doing and I think that probably a majority of the households in the state of Indiana are sitting down and trying to figure out, “how do I put food on the table? School supplies in my children's backpack? Clothes on their back? Gas in the car? Keep paying the mortgage or the rent with inflation is driving everything up?” … And in my opinion, the people who earned the money need it more than the state government does. When a state government says, “Well, we've got to have more of your money to keep up with inflation.” I think that is out of touch and insulting to the average household in the state of Indiana because Hoosiers are the ones working for that money, not the state government. The only way the state government makes money is by the threat of what they're going to do if you don't pay it to them and I find that extremely offensive. … One of the things that I tell people is in the Declaration of Independence, when Thomas Jefferson wrote about our unalienable rights, and said among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; he didn't say happiness was a right, I think, because he knew that for some people to be happy, they might have to infringe on the rights of somebody else. And we don't want that. You have the right to pursue happiness, which means you, as long as you don't infringe on someone else, can do the things that you need to do to be happy. But when the government infringes on your pursuit of happiness, they're infringing on your rights … We see it in the CBD industry today in vaping, there are lots of industries where the regulations are set up so that the big players can play but the people who want to break into the market can't afford to because (they have to) meet all the regulatory requirements. Of course, they pass it off as as safety … but the reality is the big players have their lobbyists bring these rules, these regulations, these laws to the legislature and say, “Here, we want you to pass this, by the way, while I'm taking you out to a really expensive dinner, and we're having drinks afterward, I'm going to slip you a little extra and you're going to do this for us.” Anybody that doesn't think that's going on hasn't been reading the paper or doing a lot of research online lately, because it's very evident that goes on and it really needs to stop.

Q: You mentioned healthcare. On your website you list yourself as a pro-life Libertarian. Do you find it contradictory to place more government control on abortion, when your party values individual freedom?

That's a valid question and the foundation of the Libertarian philosophy on individual freedom is the non-aggression principle. The non-aggression principle says we will oppose the use of force or the threat of force or fraud in order to promote an agenda. In my opinion, abortion violates the non-aggression principle. It is a use of force against an unborn child that cannot defend itself. So to me, that is the exception to what most people consider bodily autonomy.

Q: If elected, would you continue Indiana’s ban on abortion?

I would not implement anything that the legislature is supposed to do … because we have three branches of government. The law has been signed by the (current) governor. It is now up to the courts to determine if the law that was passed (is) constitutional. If the courts determine that it's not, then it goes back to the legislature to make the appropriate changes. It is not up to the governor to decide one way or the other. That's why we have the balance of power in the three branches of government.

Q: Do you support any exceptions?

I do. I believe that there are exceptions. I also readily accept the fact that because I'm not all knowing, I don't know when those exceptions are appropriate and when they're not. And that's here again, why we have a legislature and the courts to help determine those.

Q: Indiana has been notorious for having a supermajority in its legislature for a long time. If elected, how would you pass your agenda with a Republican supermajority?

First of all, I believe that if I'm elected governor of the state of Indiana as a libertarian, it means that the people have decided that the vision for Indiana that I've put forth is the one that they want to pursue. I would go to the individual members of the General Assembly, all 150 of them, and say, “let's sit down and talk. Let's figure out where we have commonality, and let's figure out where we don't and then let's work first of all on the things where we have commonality.” Teddy Roosevelt said that the presidency was a “bully pulpit.” I believe the governorship is a bully pulpit. If the legislature doesn't want to do what is, in my opinion, the appropriate course of action, then I can go out, meet with folks like (the Exponent), go to the TV stations, and I can say, “Okay, here's what I'm trying to get done. Here are the folks in the General Assembly that will work with me. Here are the folks that don't want to work with me. If you want this done as a citizen of the state of Indiana, you need to either get these people to work with me, or in 2026 you need to vote to replace them with somebody who will.” We don't see that with a Republican supermajority. We won't see that unless we elect a governor who is able and willing to have no strings attached. I don't answer to the Republican elites. I don't answer to the Democrat elites. I don't answer to labor unions. I don't answer to corporate CEOs. I just answer to the people who elected me.

Q: On the point of being a libertarian in this state, there's never been a Libertarian governor ever, and there have only been Republican governors for the last 20 years. What challenges have you faced on the campaign trail and why do you believe that you're gonna win the election when there has never been a Libertarian governor?

Let me first say this: I believe that I can win because I'm on the ballot and voters have the opportunity to vote for me. Whether I win or not will depend on how many voters decide that my vision of Indiana is the one they want to pursue. Now the challenge is this: I'm not for sale. I don't believe in quid pro quo. I'm not going to take a campaign donation and make a promise to the donor to promote their agenda over the citizens of the state of Indiana. We see that all too often. Large, influential special interest (groups) spend a lot of money backing the candidate that promises to give them the upper hand and I'm not that guy, because I don't believe anybody should have the upper hand, we should all have equal access to government and government should treat us all the same, period. All of my donors contributed $20, $5, $10, a couple of hundred dollars. (I) had one gentleman, who is a libertarian out in California, who's doing well for himself, donated $30,000 but that's it. Other than that $30,000 donation from a libertarian businessman in California whose only ask of me was, “please make sure that you tell people that we should be persuading, not forcing our views on others,” it's individual Hoosiers. The big struggle is, “how do you get your message out to 6.7 million Hoosiers on television and radio when you don't have a million dollars, and it gets more and more expensive every day?”

Q: What is your stance on the LEAP water pipeline?

Well, I think it violates property rights. You don't have enough water so you want to take somebody else's without their permission? I have a problem with that. I have a big problem with that, especially when there are other alternatives. There are many other alternatives for the LEAP project than to take water out of the Wabash aquifer. It's not a necessary thing, therefore they shouldn't do it, because here again, I don't think they've done enough research to ensure that they're not going to cause problems for farmers and other people here in the Tippecanoe County area.

Q: Purdue currently does not have a voting location on its campus. Should Purdue have a voting location and as governor, how will you protect voter rights?

Let me first say that I would encourage Purdue to host a polling location. I would also encourage folks to go to the Indiana Secretary of State's website. Go to the link where they can look up the polling locations closest to them so that they can vote. I believe that voting is very important. I believe that we should encourage everyone who is eligible to vote to vote. I believe that we should make it as convenient as possible, while making sure that it is also secure.

Q: Was the 2020 election a secure election?

I don't think it was any more or less secure than any other election we've had in the last 100 years.

Q: Who do you plan to vote for in the 2024 election?

I have not 100% made that decision yet. Because I'm running for governor of the state of Indiana, and because people ask me all the time, “Do you support this person? Do you support that person?” In my opinion, it is incumbent upon the governor of the state of Indiana to uphold not just the Indiana State Constitution, but the U.S. Constitution. The ninth and 10th amendments of the Constitution say that “any authority that is not specifically enumerated in the constitution to the federal government, falls to the states and the people respectively.” So, as governor of the state of Indiana, I believe instead of having your hand out to the federal government all the time going, “Can we have more money? Please? Can we have more money?” We should do just the opposite. The governor of the state of Indiana should be standing as the security guard at the gate of the state of Indiana with the ninth Amendment in one hand and the 10th Amendment in the other and look at the federal government (and) say, “Step back. You stay. You do your thing, we'll do ours.” So I don't care who the president ends up being. As Governor of the state of Indiana, when the President is within his constitutional duties, I'll work with him. When he violates his constitutional duties, I'll call him out on it. I don't care what party he's from because that should be one of the major responsibilities of the governor of the state of Indiana.

Q: Why should Purdue students vote for you?

Purdue students - any Hoosier - needs to ask themselves a question. When they go to vote, they're going to have two options. I know there's three of us running for for governor, but there's really only two options because the Republican candidate and the Democrat candidate want to continue to collect more and more tax dollars, more and more spending, bigger and bigger government which means less and less focus on the individual. Or they can vote for me and know that, here again, you can see no strings attached. Nobody's pulling my strings. Nobody's got their hand in my back, moving my mouth. I'm me. My policies are mine. My opinions are mine. What I say I'm going to do is on me to do. I believe that we need to refocus (the) government on the citizens of the state of Indiana and on securing their individual rights and making sure that they have the opportunity to pursue happiness without the government interfering. So that is why Purdue students and every other Hoosier should vote for me.