Thread: tears over "spending disclosure"

NYT: Contractors fight political disclosure plan - Politics - The New York Times - msnbc.com

In response to the bullshit that resulted from the "Citizens United" ruling in the SCotUS, the president is about to make an Executive Order requiring all future contractors that want to do business with the government must disclose their political giving.

While no final decision has been announced, the White House has acknowledged that Mr. Obama is considering issuing an executive order requiring all would-be federal contractors to disclose direct and indirect political spending of more than $5,000.
The order could, for instance, force a military contractor or an energy company seeking federal work to report money it gave to the Chamber of Commerce or another advocacy group to help finance political ads and expenditures.
After tens of millions of dollars in anonymous political spending flooded the 2010 elections following a landmark Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, Democrats tried to pass a bill known as the Disclose Act to require greater reporting of political spending, only to see it blocked by Senate Republicans. Democrats are now turning to other means, including the possible White House order and a lawsuit filed last week against the Federal Election Commission, to achieve similar ends.

Now the corporate apologists are complaining that by having to disclose who they donate to, in order to receive govt contracts, that their "free speech" will be stifled..... to which I say BULLSHIT! They are allowed to say whatever the hell they want, and they are allowed to donate to whichever entity they so choose. Only now they are doing so transparently and will now have to deal with the results of utilizing their "free speech".......

On Tuesday, 27 Republican senators also sent Mr. Obama a letter accusing him of playing politics through the proposal.
Mr. Josten said that the order as now drafted would also stifle free speech rights for businesses that worked with the government by subjecting them to harassment and protests if their political spending were disclosed.
As one example, he pointed to the Target Corporation, which was the object of boycotts and protests at its stores last year after reports said that the company gave $150,000 to a Minnesota business group that supported a Republican candidate opposed to gay marriage. “This is meant to have a chilling effect,” he said of the disclosure plan.

What's wrong with a politician playing politics? I'm a little confused by that statement.

Any evidence of that or are you speculating?

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?

Doesn't Congress approve contracts?

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

Doesn't Congress approve contracts?

I thought Congress defines the legislation that provides the process(es) and funds for a contract and (I think) the Cabinet of the Executive Branch, through whatever agency is applicable to the contract, is the one that actually enters into the contract and dispenses the funds.

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.

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