Thread: tears over "spending disclosure"

Party A is working a bid to get a government contract. Party A donates to the party responsible for deciding who gets said contract. Therein lies a conflict of interests.

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

If the executive specifically denied funds to a corporation on basis of their political standing, wouldn't that be grounds to sue? How do you know that the executive branch would do that? It honestly seems like you and Commander are fear-mongering.

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

Furthermore, if the executive branch specifially denied contracts based upon political affiliation, wouldn't that be grounds for impeachment?

It would be grounds to sue, and perhaps impeachment (though I think it would be on the Cabinet's shoulders), if it were provable in a court of law. However, do you not agree that if a political party has the option of not handing out government contracts to those who support their political opponents, albeit under the disguise of something other than who they politically support, then they're more likely to exercise that option than not to?

I'm not fear mongering, I just don't trust political parties.

Yet, I get the feeling you're only raising the question because a Democrat is trying to do this.

Regardless, if politicians were already doing that on a large scale, they would have already done so based upon election campaign contributions that are already required to be public knowledge (e.g. The politician in charge of handing out a government contract sees that the head of a company donates regularly to a political party.).

This is a good move towards transparency.

If they are going to claim these donations are "free speech", then I say let them say it out in the open.

Sent from my Defy using Tapatalk

There is potential for abuse of the system either way, but IMO much more so with it unknown. If you are corporation A, and you are concerned you may lose customers due to your political support, then it is time to take a stand either to make people happy or on your morals. Sometimes you can't do both. As for politicians denying a bid based on not getting support do you honestly think that bids are not currently being handed out based on support received? Get real.

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

Yet, I get the feeling you're only raising the question because a Democrat is trying to do this.

I'm not. If a Republican tried to pull this I would be voicing the same concerns. There is no need to know who a contractor politically supports (or perhaps at least with something as small as $5,000).

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

Regardless, if politicians were already doing that on a large scale, they would have already done so based upon election campaign contributions that are already required to be public knowledge (e.g. The politician in charge of handing out a government contract sees that the head of a company donates regularly to a political party.).

And who's to say they don't do it on a mid-scale?

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

This is a good move towards transparency.

Transparency or butting into someone else's business?

Originally Posted by Sosiego

So, basically, should this executive order be issued, contractors and companies who don't support the Democratic party (at least not via political spending of $5K+) should expect to never receive a federal contract again as long as there is a Democrat in the White House, and if they want federal contracts they need to refrain from exercising their First Amendment right in excess of $4,999.

Or am I missing something?

And I've highlighted the bits where you've shown your bias.

As to mid scale, any scale, transparency keeps that down, and it is certainly the public's business when it comes to spending taxpayer money especially where corruption can and will happen.

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

And I've highlighted the bits where you've shown your bias.

Ummm... we currently have a Democratic Executive Branch. If the current Executive Branch was Republican, I would have said Republican instead.

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

As to mid scale, any scale, transparency keeps that down, and it is certainly the public's business when it comes to spending taxpayer money especially where corruption can and will happen.

Because a private contractor or company is spending our taxpayer money to support their favored political party... unless you think their should be transparency in a private contractor or companies spending if they acquired some of their revenue through a federal contract.

Or are you saying it's the public's business to whom federal contracts, funded by our tax dollars, go to?

Originally Posted by Sosiego

Ummm... we currently have a Democratic Executive Branch. If the current Executive Branch was Republican, I would have said Republican instead.



Because a private contractor or company is spending our taxpayer money to support their favored political party... unless you think their should be transparency in a private contractor or companies spending if they acquired some of their revenue through a federal contract.

Or are you saying it's the public's business to whom federal contracts, funded by our tax dollars, go to?

It is every bit the public's interest.

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

It is every bit the public's interest.

What is? The political spending of a contractor or company if they acquired some of their revenue through a federal contract or whom the federal contracts go to?