New draft Executive Order

[lawrocket 3]

Apparently, this is real. [Url]http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2011/04/Draft-EO-Govt-Contr-Disclosure.pdf[/url]

On the heels of the Citizens United SCOTUS case, the failure of the DISCLOSE Act, the President abd his administration have decided that any person or entity contracting with the federal government should report all their political contributions to tge federal government over $5k. Well, not exactly. Even the officers or directors must report their contributions.

Is anybody else blown away by this? "Tell me how much you contributed. And your officers - what are their personal contributions? Well, in order to bid on this project you have to tell u. Yes. By party. Name. Amount." Huh? Contracts won't be awarded unless the contractor discloses whether and to whom and how much money has been donated.

Even more striking is that this is stated to be an effort at greater "transparency.". How far have we come? That government transparency doesn't mean a law saying, "government official. Tell us your contributions." The government is demandibg that private citizens be transparent in revealing their politival speech! Nope. Not the government officials. Private citizens.

"Transparency" has been perverted to "public - let us see what you've got."

Pass the tylenol..

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Don't actual Executive Orders have numbers associated with them . . . and signatures?

This certainly doesn't fit the verbal format of other Executive Orders issued by The White House, even if this is just supposed to be a draft.

Just take a look at what a real EO looks like and you tell me.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 2]

I'm still mulling this over. Part of what I'm mulling-over is how this might dovetail with the warnings Eisenhower gave us about the excesses of the military-industrial complex - a microcosm of a larger issue with government contractors.

My understanding of the policy considerations behind this are: By publicly disclosing government contractors' political donations, the public will be better informed - i.e., achieve greater transparency - as to whether a particular company might have been awarded - or denied - a contract not on the basis of low bid and/or merit, but on the basis of its or its executives' political contributions. All one has to do is think of how mere mention of the name "Halliburton" has become emblematic with abuse of government contracting.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I'm still mulling this over. Part of what I'm mulling-over is how this might dovetail with the warnings Eisenhower gave us about the excesses of the military-industrial complex - a microcosm of a larger issue with government contractors.

My understanding of the policy considerations behind this are: By publicly disclosing government contractors' political donations, the public will be better informed - i.e., achieve greater transparency - as to whether a particular company might have been awarded - or denied - a contract not on the basis of low bid and/or merit, but on the basis of its or its executives' political contributions. All one has to do is think of how mere mention of the name "Halliburton" has become emblematic with abuse of government contracting.

It seems to me that many of our right wing usual suspects are on board with corporations ability to buy all the politicians they can afford as long as they get their ever smaller ration of trickle from their masters.

[Andy9o8 2]

Well, I'd still like to focus on the practical pros and cons of the policy itself, rather than just getting into the "team" posturing of it.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Well, I'd still like to focus on the practical pros and cons of the policy itself, rather than just getting into the "team" posturing of it.

Until they put ALL of the lobbyists in jail for bribery and any politician that takes those "campaign contributions" right next to them in the next cell.... and stop the purchase of politicians by anyone, we will not have a government of the people or by the people

[quade 4]

Quote

Well, I'd still like to focus on the practical pros and cons of the policy itself, rather than just getting into the "team" posturing of it.

Wouldn't it be more helpful to know if this is an actual leaked document or simply a hoax first?

It's not like "Pajamas Media" is a credible source.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

On the heels of the Citizens United SCOTUS case, the failure of the DISCLOSE Act, the President abd his administration have decided that any person or entity contracting with the federal government should report all their political contributions to tge federal government over $5k. Well, not exactly. Even the officers or directors must report their contributions.

this would be nothing. Under my company's interpretation of SEC rules, I can't contribute more than a couple hundred dollars to any political entity, and I need to pre clear it with them first.

[kbordson 8]

I found this to be an interesting website:

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010

[lawrocket 3]

Yes, Paul. It's why I was explicit - even in the title - that this was merely a "draft."

And to those of youy out there who don't have a problem with government requiring a bidder to state their political donations, what would be going through your mind if this waa Bush's proposal? "I just want to verificate that the biddifiers haven't contributated money to the wrong party, uh, I mean, to the people awardiifying these bids,"

And why is "transparency" not about the fucking government being transparent? No. Instead it's about the People being transparent.

Hey, Jeanne -would you open your books to the Bush admin? No? Then you'd leave alll bidding open to cronies.

This is all about using politics to REWARD corporations for giving money to the correct political leaning.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

This is all about using politics to REWARD corporations for giving money to the correct political leaning.

Well, yes. But since political contributions are increasingly public record, the government already knows who contributes what to whom. So by making it public - cue "sunlight is the best disinfectant" cliche - hopefully it will keep some of the cronyism down to a dull roar. At least that's the idea.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Yes, Paul. It's why I was explicit - even in the title - that this was merely a "draft."

And to those of youy out there who don't have a problem with government requiring a bidder to state their political donations, what would be going through your mind if this waa Bush's proposal? "I just want to verificate that the biddifiers haven't contributated money to the wrong party, uh, I mean, to the people awardiifying these bids,"

And why is "transparency" not about the fucking government being transparent? No. Instead it's about the People being transparent.

Hey, Jeanne -would you open your books to the Bush admin? No? Then you'd leave alll bidding open to cronies.

This is all about using politics to REWARD corporations for giving money to the correct political leaning.

I would say the game changed completely when the very right wing appointees on the SCOTUS sold their souls and voted as their master wanted them to.

But you go ahead and believe other wise.

I do wonder what this country would look like today 10 years after the Presidency was bought and paid for by those who wanted Bush there at any cost.

[wsd 0]

Quote

I found this to be an interesting website:

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010

This will be ignored as an anomaly by those who profess a liberal mindset.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So by making it public - cue "sunlight is the best disinfectant" cliche - hopefully it will keep some of the cronyism down to a dull roar. At least that's the idea.

This is my problem: sunlight has always been the disinfectant on the government. Now it's about putting sunlight on the People.

Yes, there are corporations and private entities who grease the government wheels for all kinds of things. It happens. So what happens? Let's focus on the dirty corporations. Let us not worry about the government officials who are takign these things. Let's cover that up and shine the light on the bidders - instead of focusing on the personal time and assets of the government employees who are profiting from it, as well?

Like it or not, donations to political candidates, campaigns or issue groups is political speech. Can you imagine the Bush admin getting info that x contractor donated $10k to Planned Parenthood? Ohhh, that would be bad. But since this is the Obama Admin, well, this is a good thing. We can't have contracts given to someone who may provide information that they've donated to the opposition, can we??

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

I found this to be an interesting website:

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010

This will be ignored as an anomaly by those who profess a liberal mindset.

Being ignored by those of a "conservative" mind set is the little button that toggles the data to show who gave to the Republicans.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Jeanne - that post on the leading donors has been posted several times and Icannot recall you commenting. It gets me curious about what your thoughts are on it.

On another point, I'm wondering whether unions will be exempt from this.

On yet ANOTHER point - have you seen the donation stats from Planned Parenthood? Have you noticed to whom and how much they've contributed? PP gets government funding. PP donates to political campaigns. Pp gets more funding. Repeat. In most other circumsyancess that's called "laundering."

Now, do we focus on PP? Or do we look at the source - the politicians and government agents who are the point men versus the straw men?

Jeanne - you focus solely on the GOP. Absolutely they are guilty of it. But to dscuss Bush cronies and rewards without talking about SEIU or any of a numbner of other groups and the Dems is disingenuous. I don't blame the Unions for giving millions to Democrats because the Dems bailed them out in return.

Thanks to Citizen's United, unions also have had their speech rights restored. So did other corporations. And partnerships. And associations. Perhaps yoy view that certain people should not have a rifghrt to speech. I disagree.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wsd 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I found this to be an interesting website:

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010

This will be ignored as an anomaly by those who profess a liberal mindset.

Being ignored by those of a "conservative" mind set is the little button that toggles the data to show who gave to the Republicans.

You mean like ignoring the toggle that sets it to the highest amounts contributed?

Just be honest here.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Jeanne - that post on the leading donors has been posted several times and Icannot recall you commenting. It gets me curious about what your thoughts are on it.

On another point, I'm wondering whether unions will be exempt from this.

On yet ANOTHER point - have you seen the donation stats from Planned Parenthood? Have you noticed to whom and how much they've contributed? PP gets government funding. PP donates to political campaigns. Pp gets more funding. Repeat. In most other circumsyancess that's called "laundering."

Now, do we focus on PP? Or do we look at the source - the politicians and government agents who are the point men versus the straw men?

Jeanne - you focus solely on the GOP. Absolutely they are guilty of it. But to dscuss Bush cronies and rewards without talking about SEIU or any of a numbner of other groups and the Dems is disingenuous. I don't blame the Unions for giving millions to Democrats because the Dems bailed them out in return.

Thanks to Citizen's United, unions also have had their speech rights restored. So did other corporations. And partnerships. And associations. Perhaps yoy view that certain people should not have a rifghrt to speech. I disagree.

Do you know the difference in Hard Money Vs Soft Money and where it goes to.. Then there are the GROUPS like Swiftboat etc by Right Wing nutjobs who have VERY deep pockets... kind of like the money.. hidden or otherwise the Koch Brothers have put out there thru "front organizations" to buy politicians loyalty...

You are advocating for the complete and utter gutting of anyone else's access to have a voice if they can't afford to pay for their politicians. I do not think that ANY corporation or union's should have the right to buy elections... but thanks for playing.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Let's focus on the dirty corporations. Let us not worry about the government officials who are takign these things. Let's cover that up and shine the light on the bidders - instead of focusing on the personal time and assets of the government employees who are profiting from it, as well?

I see no reason why they need to be mutually exclusive.

Quote

Like it or not, donations to political candidates, campaigns or issue groups is political speech. Can you imagine the Bush admin getting info that x contractor donated $10k to Planned Parenthood?

But it's already open public record, Jerry. Drill & search around through opensecrets.org, which Karen mentioned in post #9. Use the search function to look up the zip code you live in. You'll see, by name, all your neighbors who donated at least $250 to a candidate, party, PAC, etc.