Presidential Order on Campaign Donations Could Counter Citizens United

[JBeukema]

While the American political process has always allowed legalized bribery, it was the disclosure rules that provided a modicum of transparency. It allowed fact-checkers and watch-dogs the opportunity scrutinize the financial backers of a campaign and make public those facts. Disclosure gave the ordinary voter some power to know the special class interests behind a candidate, a bill, or an issue.

The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United has all but eliminated that small counter-balance to big money in politics.

To remedy the problem, President Obama has circulated a draft Executive Order which builds on existing federal laws restricting political contributions by companies that get federal government contracts.

The draft EO states "every contracting department and agency shall require all entities submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose certain political contributions and expenditures that they have made within the two years prior to submission of their offer." The EO would specifically cover those kinds of disclosures the Supreme Court struck down. The disclosures would then be made available to the public.

Presidential Order on Campaign Donations Could Counter Citizens United » pa

 

[Seawytch]

Yay, transparency!!!

 

[Mad Scientist]

Obama wants to find out who his enemies are so he can attack them through government means like disallow a waiver for ObamaCare or sick the Justice Department on them.

 

[bripat9643]

Yay, transparency!!!

It's a naked attempt to intimidate and penalize any company that donates to Republicans.

There are already laws restricting campaign donations by corporations. The Citizens United case removed restrictions on independent expenditures, that is, on speech.

 

[del]

Yay, transparency!!!

 

[blastoff]

No problem with it as long as unions are held to the same level of scrutiny. Entities after federal contracts that are union shops should likewise "disclose certain political contributions and expenditures that they (unions) have made within the two years prior to submission of their offer."

Makes sense considering the truckloads of money unions shovel at Dimocrats year in and year out.

 

[Ernie S.]

Disgusting abuse of power! An executive order to circumvent a SCOTUS decision a year and a half from his reelection?

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone bidding on a federal contract should disclose who they are making political contributions to.

It is called ethics

 

[The Rabbi]

And of course if Bush had done this the Left would be screaming police state and abuse of power.
It is an abuse of power. The president cannot over-ride the Supreme Court. This measure serves no purpose other than to punish his opponents.

Next up: Africanization of industry.

 

[The Rabbi]

Anyone bidding on a federal contract should disclose who they are making political contributions to.

It is called ethics

Why? What difference does it make? The bid is either the low bid or it isn't. How does knowing which orgs the CEO contributes to further that process?

Oh, sorry those questions require thoughtful answers and that's beyond you. My bad.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

It would only be an ethics issue if the person they were giving the money to were reviewing the contract and had a financial stake in who they should give the contract to.

This is anti ethics. It is a means of coercing folks not to donate to a third party by denying them contracts. If you donate to an opposition politicians, we cut you out of the business.

 

[WillowTree]

Americans don't like Marxist dictators.

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone bidding on a federal contract should disclose who they are making political contributions to.

It is called ethics

Why? What difference does it make? The bid is either the low bid or it isn't. How does knowing which orgs the CEO contributes to further that process?

Oh, sorry those questions require thoughtful answers and that's beyond you. My bad.

Simple conflict of interest regulations that have been in place for decades. Federal contracts are supposed to go to the best qualified bidder not the one with the most political connections.

Disclosing who you are contributing to is common sense

 

[rightwinger]

Americans don't like Marxist dictators.

I didn't like Bush either

 

[rightwinger]

And of course if Bush had done this the Left would be screaming police state and abuse of power.
It is an abuse of power. The president cannot over-ride the Supreme Court. This measure serves no purpose other than to punish his opponents.

Next up: Africanization of industry.

Ohhhhh NOOOOooo


Not more BOOOOOoooosh!

 

[WillowTree]

Americans don't like Marxist dictators.

I didn't like Bush either

I didn't know President Bush when to a black liberation theology church for 20 years and soaked up "God damn America" with the wifey and children.

 

[Avorysuds]

Americans don't like Marxist dictators.

I didn't like Bush either

But you said you're going to vote for Bushbama in 2012 already.... odd.

 

[BenNatuf]

Yay, transparency!!!

It's a naked attempt to intimidate and penalize any company that donates to Republicans.

There are already laws restricting campaign donations by corporations. The Citizens United case removed restrictions on independent expenditures, that is, on speech.

I'm glad I didn't have to point that out again. Leftists are such ignorant morons who will buy any talking points their masters deem to utter.

 

[blastoff]

Anyone bidding on a federal contract should disclose who they are making political contributions to.

It is called ethics

Why? What difference does it make? The bid is either the low bid or it isn't. How does knowing which orgs the CEO contributes to further that process?

Oh, sorry those questions require thoughtful answers and that's beyond you. My bad.

Simple conflict of interest regulations that have been in place for decades. Federal contracts are supposed to go to the best qualified bidder not the one with the most political connections.

Disclosing who you are contributing to is common sense

Many federal contracts have minority ownership requirements for companies to be eligible to bid. In that case the winner could be the most "best qualified" of minority owned bidders but not necessarily the overall best qualified when compared to those without minority ownership.

 

[rightwinger]

Americans don't like Marxist dictators.

I didn't like Bush either

But you said you're going to vote for Bushbama in 2012 already.... odd.

LOL...yea...thats a funny joke

Still trying to sell the Obama is the same as Bush nonsense