Posted on 05/12/2011 2:40:52 PM PDT by jazusamo
Washington (CNSNews.com) – Two Senate Democrats have joined Republicans in questioning President Barack Obama’s planned executive order to require that all federal contractors disclose their political contributions to independent groups– expressing fear it would politicize the contracting process.
“We are concerned that requiring businesses to disclose their political activity when making an offer risks injecting politics into the contracting process,” said a letter from Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the committee’s ranking member Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Sens. Claire McCaskill and Rob Portman (R-Ohio.). “Federal contracting law already precludes the consideration of political activity in evaluating contract offers.”
Entitled the “Disclosure of Political Spending By Government Contractors,” the order, still being drafted, would likely implement parts of the DISCLOSE Act, which failed to get through Congress last year.
The legislation sought to restrict campaign speech after the landmark Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the right of corporations and unions to donate to campaigns.
Government contractors are already required to disclose contributions to political candidates. This executive order would require the disclosure of any donations to independent groups, where conservative groups outspent liberal ones in the 2010 election.
The bipartisan Senate letter continues, “The requirement that businesses disclose political expenditures as part of the offer process creates the appearance that this type of information could become a factor in the award of federal contracts.”
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said he was puzzled that anyone would be opposed to greater disclosure rules, but he did not want to get into the details of a pending order.
“I would simply say that disclosure is a good thing, and I’m not sure when it became a bad word or a bad idea,” Carney told reporters. “Disclosure used to be something that Republicans supported very much, and I think the American people support it a great deal.
“Specifics of this executive order I do not have, but I think the principle of disclosure and transparency are very much at the heart of a notion, at the heart of a goal the direct opposite of what you are suggesting. Transparency and disclosure allow for everyone to see into a process that can probably reduce the process of politics entering a process like that,” Carney added.
The legislation, and likely the executive order, would have not only required the disclosure of individual contributions to particular candidates, but it would also cover donations to any organization that might use the funds for independent groups that support candidates. However, critics point out, unions that sign collective bargaining contracts with the government are not subject to the disclosure requirements.
Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, held a hearing on the executive order Thursday and praised the bipartisan opposition to the administration’s move.
“With a now bipartisan outcry against an order which would put politics before the best interest of our taxpayers, the Administration needs to provide candid answers and has an opportunity to do so at today's hearing,” Issa said.
“Concerns that this executive order that will have a chilling effect on contractors who fear a corrupt Chicago-style spoils system where contracts are tied to partisan political affiliations are very real. President Obama would be wrong to try and ignore this clear and bipartisan opposition,” he added.
Daniel Gordon, administrator for federal procurement policy with the White House Office of Management and Budget, testified to the committee in defense of the policy.
“I can state unequivocally that this Administration has always been, and remains, fully committed to a merit-based contracting process rooted in the highest levels of integrity and transparency,” Gordon told the committee.
“There is no place for politics in federal acquisition. Accordingly, the process must ensure, and the public must have confidence, that no political considerations are allowed to bear on federal contracting decisions at any point during the acquisition process,” he added.
Two House Democrats oppose the executive order. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) is opposed to the executive order, The Hill newspaper reported. Also, The Washington Post reported that Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) opposes the move.
The federal procurement process should be based on merits, bids, and capabilities, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.
“The White House is spinning this as reform, claiming the American people deserve to know how taxpayer money is being used by contractors. However, the proposed Executive Order would exclude Democratic allies, including federal employee labor unions, environmental groups, and Planned Parenthood,” McConnell said.
“As I’ve said, no White House should be able to review your political party affiliation before deciding if you’re worthy of a government contract. And no one should have to worry about whether their political support will determine their ability to get or keep a federal contract or keep their job,” he added.
The DISCLOSE Act was pushed by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). Announcing the bill at a Feb. 11, 2010 press conference, Schumer said that its provisions “will make them [corporations] think twice before spending unlimited sums to influence elections. The deterrent effect should not be underestimated.”
The Supreme Court justices at the 2010 State of the Union address, as President Obama criticized the court’s campaign finance ruling. Obama has long railed against the Citizens United ruling. During his 2010 State of the Union speech, he criticized the Supreme Court, prompting a visible response from Justice Samuel Alito, who along with his colleagues, was seated just feet from the podium.
That’s how I see it also. Obama would really go ballistic if SCOTUS shot down his EO but I don’t know how that would work or if it’s possible.
The companies...would have given to various political figures....to include a couple of big-name Democrats who sit on various committees. It’s been standard practice for well over five or six decades. If you attached this order to the companies...why bother donating at all? You’d skip the Democrats in line as well. You can imagine a tough race in a balanced district where a quarter of your funding just got flushed down the toilet.
I’m guessing that the White House team is shocked that their surprise isn’t being ready accepted by big-name Democrats. They should have discussed it openly before getting to this stage.
Jay Carney is nothing more than Obama’s “bitch”! If he ever grows up he’ll be a bad second to Obamabot, Alan Colmes.
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.