Then how come corporations don't donate to candidates that actually support the free market?

Come on guys, I've seen a lot of members make both of these asinine points. Neither of them are right, but it's physically impossible for both of them to be eight.

So, which is it?

Wikipedia.

A incorporated entity is a separate legal entity that has been incorporated through a legislative or registration process established through legislation. Incorporated entities have legal rights andliabilities that are distinct from its shareholders.^[1] 

My understanding is that a corporation is created by government. I don't consider government intervention to be a free market, so it makes sense to me that they wouldn't donate to free market candidates.

Switch out "corporation" for "company", "business", "wealthy elite", and all the other terms used.

Of course, you're right, but this thread wasn't aimed at you, it's aimed at the people that usually make both of these claims.

Money can't buy elections ... Corporations are trying to buy influence from candidates which will (likely) win, not trying to get candidates they like elected.

Same shit. Different density.

obviously they don't want pure capitalism, they would actually have to compete on an even playing field in that case. They want protection from competition through the politicians. They don't want free markets, they want a corporate crony hybrid that they can claim is free market but it really isn't.

They want to power to themselves and don't really want to compete. Although, a proper free market, does sound better, it almost allows for near infinite growth and prosperity and lots of competition

Exactly. The CEO of multi-billion dollar company doesn't want a pure "free market" if the current market is rife with loopholes that lets them gain extra profit, f*ck the free market. They want a system that gets them the most profit.