We’re not a well-funded operation — National Review never has been. We’ve always relied on our readers to make up for what we’re not earning through ads and other revenue. Knowing this — that we are neither making a profit nor out for one — many of the writers you read on a daily basis (and all of the authors below) write regularly without financial compensation.

Why would they ever do such a thing? Let them tell you.

Heather Mac Donald, John M. Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor to City Journal:

Why do I write for NRO? Location, location, location. Appearing in the same neighborhood as NRO’s superstar columnists guarantees an audience that I would otherwise never presume to attain. NRO is one of the prime pieces of opinion real estate, one with the power to help move public thinking.

Henry Payne, editor of TheMichiganView.com, cartoonist for the Detroit News, regular on NRO’s Planet Gore:

Why do I write for the NRO? Let me count the ways.

NRO reaches America’s best and brightest. NRO is an innovative Web presence that offers an immediate, 24-7 opinion forum on news at it unfolds. NRO’s editors are smart, engaging, never stuffy. NRO appreciates good reporting, not just polemics. NRO lets me write with wit and passion, an oasis in a desert of corporate journalism. NRO welcomes my Midwest perspective on American public policy.

Above all, NRO is a conservative icon true to Buckley’s pioneer spirit, encouraging a variety of commentary from satire to thoughtful punditry — which is why my cartoons and articles can be found in the same publication. I have written and drawn for NRO on everything from auto bailouts to Detroit cultural dysfunction to the Michigan presidential primary.

Where else can a journalist find such a canvas for wit, writing, and free-wheeling commentary? Perhaps in TheMichiganView.com, the state’s leading online commentary website, which I launched for the Detroit News a year ago. Its inspiration? The indispensable NRO.

Michael J. New, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama and a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute:

I contribute to NRO because it is a first-rate outlet for my commentary and research on pro-life issues. Much of the mainstream media — and, unfortunately, even some conservative media outlets — ignore sanctity-of-life issues. Furthermore, on those infrequent occasions when sanctity-of-life issues are covered, pro-life perspectives are either ignored or treated in a very marginalized, tokenized manner. However, ever since I started writing for NRO in 2002 it was clear that the editors realized the importance of abortion and other sanctity-of-life issues and possessed an interest in thoughtful commentary with a pro-life perspective.

I will also add that NRO is one of the very few conservative publications with a truly nationwide reach. I still remember when my first editorial was posted in 2002. Even though I had previously published editorials in other outlets, NRO gave my commentary much more visibility and attention. Furthermore, since much of my writing involves state-level issues, whether it be state-level pro-life legislation or state-level fiscal limits, NRO provides me with the ability to communicate with grassroots conservatives. Overall, for over ten years, NRO has provided its readers with fast, hard hitting commentary from conservative experts on a wide variety of issues. All in all, it is both an honor and a privilege to have the opportunity to contribute to NRO.

Grace-Marie Arnett, president of the Galen Institute (and regular contributor to Critical Condition, our health-care blog):

National Review has been, is today, and clearly will be far into the future the touchstone for conservative ideas and principles.

A new generation of leaders is carrying forward William F. Buckley’s mission to elucidate conservative values as they pertain to current events. And in this fast-paced world, new technologies are making the messages even more timely and relevant through the vibrant and lively NRO website.

As a writer and devoted reader, I know, as do so many others, that National Review is the meeting place for conservatives. Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and hundreds of other popularizers of conservative ideas rely on National Review for substantive analysis and insightful commentary to guide their communications.

All of us whom NRO allows to offer posts are privileged to be part of this community.

National Review becomes more relevant and important every day as we make progress in broadening the base of those who recognize that conservative principles hold the key to a more prosperous and free future. National Review will continue to be the beacon to show the way for America and the world.

Matthew J. Franck, director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institutein Princeton, New Jersey:

Why do I write for NRO? Because it is, to conservatism online, what NR is to conservatism in print: the flagship, the gold standard, the place where conservatism’s meaning gets hashed out, debated, distilled, and then debated some more. Because it’s the place I go most frequently as a reader to get the straight story and smart opinion. Because Rich and Kathryn and the NRO crew trust their bloggers and other “regulars” to have interesting things to say about the subjects of their own choosing, without leaning on them to take a party line. Because it is the home of good policy analysis, astute political thinking, sober moral philosophizing, sound legal reasoning, clever cultural criticism, spot-on journalism, and sheer whimsy. Because I’ve made fast friends here. Could there be better reasons to want to put one’s two cents in, in such a place?

Matt Franck, Grace-Marie Arnett, Michael New, and Henry Payne and so many others support NRO with their work and words. Will you consider supporting us with your financial support today? Thank you! Contribute here.