tears over "spending disclosure"

**Gumby** · 04-27-11, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Sosiego

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?

Yes to both.
I am a former contractor and potentially a future one again. And I will tell you that this stuff should be in the open. There is no reason for them to hide their "Free Speech" Free Speech is a right to make known your feelings on a subject. The SCoUS (wrongly) granted corporations this right so lets hear what they have to say. That is what Free Speech is all about after all.

**CivilWars** · 04-27-11, 01:48 PM

Doesn't free speech also mean the freedom to say nothing?

Their argument is retarded, but just saying.

**~~hawgballs~~** · 04-27-11, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Doesn't free speech also mean the freedom to say nothing?

Their argument is retarded, but just saying.

They certainly do have the right to say nothing. And they have the right to contract their services elsewhere instead of with the government. You see? In order to bid any contracts they must play by the rules and be transparent. If they want to keep mum about it, well that is fine too, just don't expect a contract with the federal government.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

**CivilWars** · 04-27-11, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by hawgballs

They certainly do have the right to say nothing. And they have the right to contract their services elsewhere instead of with the government. You see? In order to bid any contracts they must play by the rules and be transparent. If they want to keep mum about it, well that is fine too, just don't expect a contract with the federal government.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Not disputing that, more responding to Gumby implying that freedom of speech means I have to speak everything I do, or they. I already stated I think it would be a positive thing.

**Gumby** · 04-27-11, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by hawgballs

They certainly do have the right to say nothing. And they have the right to contract their services elsewhere instead of with the government. You see? In order to bid any contracts they must play by the rules and be transparent. If they want to keep mum about it, well that is fine too, just don't expect a contract with the federal government.

Exactly

**Alundil** · 05-06-11, 01:54 PM

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?

No it wouldn't be grounds for impeachment.

**Alundil** · 05-06-11, 01:59 PM

And as someone else pointed out earlier - there are upsides and downsides to this as it would be possible to abuse either way.

With that said, donations of more that $5k should not be anonymous (and I'd go so far as to extend that all the way to John Q. Public - as there are highly influential people who can, and do, make donations anonymously).

But oh well