Posted on 04/19/2011 10:31:09 AM PDT by jazusamo
Says our source: "They lost in the Supreme Court, they lost in Congress, they lost at the FEC, so now the president is just going to do it by edict."
An impeccable source has provided me with a copy of a draft Executive Order pdf that the White House is apparently circulating for comments from several government agencies. Titled “Disclosure of Political Spending By Government Contractors,” it appears to be an attempt by the Obama administration to implement — by executive fiat — portions of the DISCLOSE Act.
This was the bill introduced last year by Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The bill had onerous requirements that were duplicative of existing law and burdensome to political speech. It never passed Congress because of principled opposition to its unfair, one-side requirements that benefited labor unions at the expense of corporations. Democratic commissioners at the Federal Election Commission then tried to implement portions of the bill in new regulations. Fortunately, those regulations were not adopted because of the united opposition of the Republican commissioners.
As my source says:
It really is amazing — they lost in the Supreme Court, they lost in Congress, they lost at the FEC, so now the president is just going to do it by edict.
The draft Executive Order says it is intended to “increase transparency and accountability,” an interesting claim given the fact that federal contractors are already completely barred by 2 U.S.C. § 441c from making:
Any contribution of money or other things of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office or to any person for any political purpose or use.
Yet 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.
The problem is that this will require companies to delve into the personal political activities of their officers and directors — and require them to report political contributions those employees have made, not out of corporate funds (which is illegal), but out of their personal funds.
And note that these disclosure requirements will only apply to companies that make bids on government contracts. Federal employee unions that negotiate contracts for their members worth many times the value of some government contracts are not affected by this order. Neither are the recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal grants.
Clearly, this administration is not interested in increasing “transparency and accountability” when it comes to forcing union leaders or the heads of liberal advocacy organizations such as Planned Parenthood from disclosing the personal political contributions they make to candidates running for federal office.
The draft order also tries to interfere with the First Amendment rights of contractors. It requires them to disclose independent expenditures that can be made legally on everything from politics to grassroots lobbying on issues. This is clearly intended to deter charitable and other contributions to third-party organizations, since the contractors will have to report any such contributions made with the “reasonable expectation” that the money will be used for First Amendment-protected activities.
“Reasonable expectation” is the kind of broad, nebulous legal term that can cover almost any situation that the government — and government prosecutors — want it to cover. This makes it almost impossible for contractors to know what the acceptable legal standard is for engaging in First Amendment activity.
This administration completely mischaracterized the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, especially when President Obama attacked the Court in his State of the Union speech. It misrepresented the intended effects and requirements of the DISCLOSE Act, which former FEC Chairman Brad Smith correctly observed should really have been called the “Democratic Incumbents Seeking to Contain Losses by Outlawing Speech in Elections Now” Act.
With this proposed Executive Order, the administration is engaging in a back-door maneuver that promotes transparency only in the form of transparent political gamesmanship. It’s an alarming proposal that should raise great concern among members of Congress and the American public.
Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org) and a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission.
No, it's far, far worse. We trusted them and they lied to us.
I think, when it comes to unConstitutional executive orders, only the supreme court can stop him. One, or more of Clinton’s, a world class abuser of XOs, was overturned by the USSC, as unConstitutional.
Someone remind me, who has the majority in the USSC, now? The Constitutionalists, or the socially progressive, screw the Constitution, crowd?
“No, it’s far, far worse. We trusted them and they lied to us.”
We demanded no compromise with the devil. When Boehner was chosen as SOTH, I felt then, our brand spanking new world class cruiser, was already taking on water.
However, the battle is not over. In fact, the battle has just begun. We have Hussein in a corner. He is literally course crashing to create a budget of his own, presenting a rough draft to his friends on facebook. (As if they would have a clue.) Of course, Hussein knows they are clueless. He uses them like a terrorist, who uses children as human shields. (See how popular I am. See how much they love me, and my budget proposal.) We are engaged, and Hussein is on the run.
Like a fox, who has hounds, and men on horseback, in hot pursuit, this fox will be captured.
The budget is one of our most major skirmishes, thus far, with the fox. Had we not elected them, there would be no skirmish, at all.
Only now, does the real pursuit to capture the fox begin.
classic chicago politics being implemented at the federal level
Obama hates presidenting, but he loves the job.
But with regard to the military, they are also the same frog in warmer and warmer water as we all are. There is no such a day when an officer can say "yesterday it was OK but today it's all wrong, so I have to refuse my orders." That would be too easy. A President-Dictator ... who could tell the difference if his pet Supreme Court refuses to review cases and his pet Congress is forever lost in debates? See the chart above; hardly anyone cares any more how decisions are made; and for many people it's way over their head anyway.
If today Obama, out of the blue, orders the US military to attack China the generals would certainly call fire and EMR, with instructions to bring a strong straitjacket. But if today Obama orders the US military to attack Libya ... hey, he just did that, and the military ate it up! It's being trained for obedience, since only a dictator could order bombing of a foreign country without an approval from Congress and without an imminent danger from that country.
how does one gain control of the population?
one has a private army
as well equipped as our military
Zero’s army is the Union
his generals are the union bosses
through forced payment of dues and government grants, the unions are well equipped to control logistics, such as who gets what when: which job, which salary, or which car registration, or ticket, or marriage license, or case investigation, or credit report gets preference
public employee unions are a conflict of interest
and a danger to the Republic
"It's a republic, if you can keep it". Benjamin Franklin;
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson;
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money". Margaret Thatcher;
"One of the consequences of such notions as "entitlements" is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence." Thomas Sowell;
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Winston Churchill;
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." Alexis de Tocqueville.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." This quote has been attributed to Alexander Tytler, Elmer T. Peterson, and even Alexis de Tocqueville. No one is certain who originally coined the phrase.
No matter who originated the last quote, it is a truism as if you or I had stated it today.
There is no going back once people get what they think to be free stuff from the Fedgov. Remember the woman who said, "...it will come from Obama's stash"? That thinking will be our demise. Even us boomers will gladly accept Medicare from other tax-payers till we die.
The populace will always be promised more by the politicians and continue to vote those in who promise them most. The producers and self-accountable types are growing older and dying off. Who does that leave? THE public educated X generation who have NO clue what life is about.
So what's the answer beyond the moment of reprieve we've had with the House turn-over? You really think that will last with the above takers? And what REAL change have they even accomplished so far? 350 million reduction in a 1.3 trillion projected deficit? Have they seriously defunded ANYTHING??? Boehner is a frigging sissy. I would hang my head in shame and resign, if that were the best I could do.
I don't think you guys are getting it. Once a wannabe politician climbs the ladder from city council or "community organizer" to higher office, it is painfully obvious they no longer have the best ideals of the US Constitution or civic duty in the forefront of their minds. They are about their careers.
Again, what's the answer? What's my answer? I've posted many of my ideas on this board over time, but you rah,rah party people don't want to hear it, because you're so locked into your next election.
I'd go back through my vanities to find the post that gives a point by point plan to reverse our headlong race into the socialist oblivion, but so many would rather run their race or team, rather than try to make real changes in the system.
You’re funny sometimes, but you’re also aware. Do you want to see my 10 point plan?
The other day Obama said to a Town Hall audience that he wants to Live in a Country that is FAIR and you don see Homeless People when you are driving around. All I could think of when I heard that was it sounded Like a Beauty Paegeant Contestant in the Question Round Giving their answer to the Question of What Kind of Country would you like to Have. But Folks this Is your President The Great orator
Yes please.
Very easily: "EVADING" the NBC issue!!!
Did the “panel” discussed it???
And What’s the difference???
Have you heard/read of the unreported meeting @ SCOTUS on January 14, 2009 and did you see the SOTU address also???
It was explained very clearly to you, hard of comprehending???
Your words are rule violation!!!
Read post 52!!!
Truer words were never spoken. They have absolutely no clue. Nor does much of the American public at large, IMO.
Bump to Tyranny
Yes they do. Their Government represents what you SHOULD think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.