No matter who wrote it, it would appear so to you. Mine would simply say that the government must buy the lowest-cost software available that fits objectively written criteria for the task at hand. Then I would have RFPs and purchase orders reviewed for being targeted, and reject them if they were.
That goes both ways. If someone were targeting an RFP towards a Linux system and somehow the Microsoft bid came in lower (without using their slush fund), then Microsoft would have to get the contract.
Your definition of a slush fund is the same as corporate America's definition of a flexible profit margin. That's why you evidently won't accept any situation where Microsoft provides the low bid: "It must be the illegal slush fund."
Mine would simply say that the government must buy the lowest-cost software available that fits objectively written criteria for the task at hand.
As an example, I'm sure someone could dumb down the requirements for office software bidding so that OpenOffice meets the criteria. But Bush2000 brings up a good point: Useability, retraining, compatibility, productivity all have their costs & benefits which should be factored into any objective criteria.
When an employee is pulling down $50K plus benefits, what employer would forego spending a few hundred dollars per year for the tools to make him more productive? I would say a very short-sighted one. I know I wouldn't want employees eating up my payroll wrestling with 2nd rate, feature-challenged GPL crap like OpenOffice.