Presidential Order on Campaign Donations Could Counter Citizens United

[rightwinger]

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.

Many contracts are 8A set aside for minority business owners. Best qualified usually means best technically capable, best long term costs and best record on past contracts

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBush would have NEVER done anything to force the corps to be honest

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

So.. Emperor Obama lays down yet another decree.

Lovely. '12 can't come soon enough.

 

[Ringel05]

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

For all large entities and large individual donations, not just contractors.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBush would have NEVER done anything to force the corps to be honest

No, he would have done it to the unions, far left advocacy groups and tort lawyers but I guess that was too difficult for you to figure out.

 

[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.

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

Except there is no conflict of interest issue here.
If my company is bidding on a Navy contract, what difference does it make whether I contributed money to Obama's campaign or McCain's campaign? It sure doesn't make any difference to the Dept of the Navy.
It is common sense that this measure is designed solely to suppress campaign contributions to Obama's opponents. There can be no other reason.

 

[Avatar4321]

So the President thinks he can issue an order that can constitutionally regulate free speech where Congress can't constitutionally pass a statute that does?

Does anyone really want the Congress or President telling you you cant say things about them?

 

[JBeukema]

So the President thinks he can issue an order that can constitutionally regulate free speech where Congress can't constitutionally pass a statute that does?

Does anyone really want the Congress or President telling you you cant say things about them?

Requiring people reveal who's paying off congress is restricting free speech?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Does anyone ever use the search function? This is at least the third thread on this subject since the draft EO was released. I believe I posted the first one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

It is called ethics

They already do. This EO would expands that to things people are not required to tell their employers, or anyone else, normally. It is a blatant attempt to invade privacy and make a list of people who give to groups that are out of favor with the powers that be, and is opposed by some Democrats.

Want to try again?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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.

I believe I already heard that Unions were exempt from this.
No shit.