Friday, April 22, 2011

Obama To Force Private Federal Contractors To Reveal Political Contributions To Bid - Unions Exempted

If you are a contractor, and you want to bid on a government contract, President Barack Obama is issuing an executive order that is going to force you to disclose your political contributions - unless you're a union.

As you know, the president tried this through legislation, and then through the Supreme Court and lost both times, so he's now going to do it by diktat.

Essentially, this is an attempt to force compliance with the failed DISCLOSE Act.Meanwhile Federal employee unions negotiating contracts for their members worth many times the value of some government contracts are unaffected by this order, and so are the recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal grants.

After all, Obama knows where the payola from the union coffers is going, doesn't he? Ditto with people who receive federal grants, who go through a vetting process the Administration controls.And many of them are leftist advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood or NPR..who won't have to disclose anything.

And I use the term 'payola' advisedly, by the way. With this in place, the Obama Administration can literally enforce 'pay to play', awarding contracts to 'friendlies' who kick in to Democrat coffers and punishing those who don't by withholding contracts.

The Obama Administration did exactly the same thing when it gifted GM to the unions at the taxpayer's expense. Dealerships that were minority owned or whose owners donated to Democrats were allowed to stay open. Those who didn't meet those criteria were cut loose and essentially forced out of business, no matter how profitable they were or how established.

This proposed Executive Order would require government contractors to disclose:

(a) All contributions or expenditures to or on behalf of federal candidates, parties or party committees made by the bidding entity, its directors or officers, or any affiliates or subsidiaries within its control.

(b) Any contributions made to third party entities with the intention or reasonable expectation that parties would use those contributions to make independent expenditures or electioneering communications.

In other words, this order will require companies to delve into the personal political activities of their officers and directors — and require them to report the private political contributions those employees have made.

This is both illegal and unconstitutional since it is a blatant attempt to interfere with the First Amendment rights of contractors. It requires them to disclose independent and legal donations, including charitable contributions to organizations involved in grassroots lobbying (ala' the Tea Party, or even something like the Heritage Foundation or AIPAC) or pretty much anything else the Administration decides has a “reasonable expectation” of the money being used for First Amendment-protected activities.

The total disregard of this administration for law and the consent of the governed simply knows no bounds.

please helps me write more gooder!


Anonymous said...

When will we get campaigns financed ny the people, openly? Not by corporations, unions, The NRA, The Sierra Club, PACS and other organizations who conceal the identity of the true contributors. Here's a proposal to restore the nation to the people.
(Commentary in {..}, not part of proposed Amendment}

No candidate for the Presidency or either house of Congress shall accept contributions in cash or in kind from any organization or group of persons for expenses incurred in a campaign for that office. All such contributions shall be made only by individual citizens who shall attest that the funds or other items of value are from their own resources and that they have not received, nor have they been promised, offsetting items of value from any other party in exchange for their contribution. The identity and extent of contributions to such campaigns shall be made public for a period of thirty days from receipt before being employed or used as collateral for a loan by such campaigns. Organizations of any type, {i.e. corporations, unions, gun rights advocates, environmental protection groups, even “Susie’s Flower Shop”, a theoretical small business cited in the Citizen’s United Case,} may, without restriction, expend money to advocate a position on any issue before or likely to come before the electorate insofar as no candidate’s name or description is included in their expressions of advocacy.

{The intent of the above is to bring “transparency” to campaign financing by removing any group from the process whereby that group may conceal the identity of an individual contributor as well as limiting the influence of such groups or “special interests”. It further prevents an organization from making such contributions when an individual within that organization, such as a union member or corporation stockholder, may oppose the candidate. Considering the large equity position in certain corporations that the federal government has recently taken in response to the economic crises, this is particularly important in excluding such influence. The money from “special interest” groups will then go to promote that for which they exist, their “special interest”. The media will be directed to expositions on the issues facing the electorate, thus enhancing discussion and hopefully understanding of issues, bereft of personalities.

Freedom Fighter said...

Nice idea Anonymous, but like virtually everyone in DC Land you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

The key top reforming our election process doesn't lie in trying to keep money out of politics ( and such tactics, like McCain-Feingold are highly unconstitutional) but in limiting how much can be spent in a given campaign.

There's no point in collecting a billion dollars to spend on a presidential campaign when only a tenth of that amount can be legally collected and spent, during a statutorily set amount of time.

Statutory limits on television advertising and time limits on how long an official campaign and its ads can be produced publicly go hand and hand with this.


Anonymous said...

I can only respond that your proposal would be easier to evade than would be mine. You would limit what the candidate could spend, but here comes the "independent expenditures". At least you don't advocate the silly public financing idea. I do appreciate your commenting. Please take a look at the upcoming campaign where BHO reportedly has a billion dollar stash already. And then take your pick between Soros and the Koch brothers. regardless of your politics, I think you can see how bad it smells. This should be something that we could find common agreement across ideologies.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hello Anonymous,
Actually, I 'm afraid I disagree with you about being easy to evade. In fact, the French have used pretty much this exact system for years.

'Independent expenditures' like the 503c's created by McCain-Feingold aren't allowed, and only a certain amount can legally be spent - period.

When you're only legally allowed to spend a given amount and television ads are highly limited, there's no percentage in raising any more than that.

Limiting the campaign season (when ads can legally be run) to 10 months as the French do also cuts down on 'issue fatigue' in the ranks of voters.

BTW, BHO has not yet raised a billion dollars - that's what he's projected to raise and spend.


Paul DiNucci said...

Kudos Obama. It's about time someone tried to sever private federal contractors from sucking the federal utters until there's nothing left.
Who gains from this fleecing? The corporate insiders and their elective officials.
The media need to study this scrupulously and reveal the truth about federal spending and who's benefitting.
We know who's losing - the taxpayers.

Rob said...

Well Paul,
What you're really saying is that federal contractors had better take care to grease the proper palms before bidding. And you really think it's fair to exempt the unions, who were the primary beneficiaries of the GM bailout, including a $45.4 billion tax break at the taxpayer's expense?

That's a step backwards to the old Democrat invented 'patronage system'. And it leads to more questionable dealings and milking of the American taxpayer.

President Obama already gave us an example of how he works that with the auto bailout. Out of the car dealerships who weren't forced out of business, all were either Democrat donors, minority owned, or both.