Posted on 04/19/2011 10:31:09 AM PDT by jazusamo
Says our source: "They lost in the Supreme Court, they lost in Congress, they lost at the FEC, so now the president is just going to do it by edict."
An impeccable source has provided me with a copy of a draft Executive Order pdf that the White House is apparently circulating for comments from several government agencies. Titled “Disclosure of Political Spending By Government Contractors,” it appears to be an attempt by the Obama administration to implement — by executive fiat — portions of the DISCLOSE Act.
This was the bill introduced last year by Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The bill had onerous requirements that were duplicative of existing law and burdensome to political speech. It never passed Congress because of principled opposition to its unfair, one-side requirements that benefited labor unions at the expense of corporations. Democratic commissioners at the Federal Election Commission then tried to implement portions of the bill in new regulations. Fortunately, those regulations were not adopted because of the united opposition of the Republican commissioners.
As my source says:
It really is amazing — they lost in the Supreme Court, they lost in Congress, they lost at the FEC, so now the president is just going to do it by edict.
The draft Executive Order says it is intended to “increase transparency and accountability,” an interesting claim given the fact that federal contractors are already completely barred by 2 U.S.C. § 441c from making:
Any contribution of money or other things of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office or to any person for any political purpose or use.
Yet this proposed Executive Order would require government contractors to disclose:
(a) All contributions or expenditures to or on behalf of federal candidates, parties or party committees made by the bidding entity, its directors or officers, or any affiliates or subsidiaries within its control.
(b) Any contributions made to third party entities with the intention or reasonable expectation that parties would use those contributions to make independent expenditures or electioneering communications.
The problem is that this will require companies to delve into the personal political activities of their officers and directors — and require them to report political contributions those employees have made, not out of corporate funds (which is illegal), but out of their personal funds.
And note that these disclosure requirements will only apply to companies that make bids on government contracts. Federal employee unions that negotiate contracts for their members worth many times the value of some government contracts are not affected by this order. Neither are the recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal grants.
Clearly, this administration is not interested in increasing “transparency and accountability” when it comes to forcing union leaders or the heads of liberal advocacy organizations such as Planned Parenthood from disclosing the personal political contributions they make to candidates running for federal office.
The draft order also tries to interfere with the First Amendment rights of contractors. It requires them to disclose independent expenditures that can be made legally on everything from politics to grassroots lobbying on issues. This is clearly intended to deter charitable and other contributions to third-party organizations, since the contractors will have to report any such contributions made with the “reasonable expectation” that the money will be used for First Amendment-protected activities.
“Reasonable expectation” is the kind of broad, nebulous legal term that can cover almost any situation that the government — and government prosecutors — want it to cover. This makes it almost impossible for contractors to know what the acceptable legal standard is for engaging in First Amendment activity.
This administration completely mischaracterized the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, especially when President Obama attacked the Court in his State of the Union speech. It misrepresented the intended effects and requirements of the DISCLOSE Act, which former FEC Chairman Brad Smith correctly observed should really have been called the “Democratic Incumbents Seeking to Contain Losses by Outlawing Speech in Elections Now” Act.
With this proposed Executive Order, the administration is engaging in a back-door maneuver that promotes transparency only in the form of transparent political gamesmanship. It’s an alarming proposal that should raise great concern among members of Congress and the American public.
Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation (www.heritage.org) and a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission.
Just because the Robert’s court has refused to address this issue, doesn’t mean that the court is his protector; it might mean that they don’t want to have to worry what gets ignited when they start their cars...
Why the sudden need for over 350,000 detainee handbooks ___ ?
Do they need a new excuse to activate all those FEMA prison camps ___ ?
What’s the intent behind the leaks? Could they be on purpose?
The wannabe is sure beginning to look like the real thing. Making a pretty good impression of a South American thug.
Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from “congressional intent” or exceeds the President’s constitutional powers. In one such notable instance, President Harry Truman, was rebuked by the Supreme Court for overstepping the bounds of presidential authority. After World War II, Truman seized control of steel mills across the nation in an effort to settle labor disputes. In response to a challenge of this action, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional and exceeded presidential powers because neither the Constitution or any statute authorized the President to seize private businesses to settle labor disputes. For the most part, however, the Court has been fairly tolerant of wide range of executive actions.
Nothing happens by accident with these enemies of America.
They have hundreds or more taxpayer paid minions setting around
planning every little move every minute of the day and night. We are being overwhelmed with evil, sneaky, vermin.
But I must hand it to the America hating vermin.
They do know how to work it.
We have scared, lazy, dumbazzes walking around with their thumbs up their noses.
I doubt that this would happen to 0.
Come on Congress, impeach the little bastard.
Riiiight, for the want of nebulous threats (like the foolishness you just tried to float at FR), one of the main branches of OUR government steps aside so a lying fraud can occupy one of the other two branches. Yeah, I see what you mean ... *sheesh* some fools don’t deserve what the founders established!
I’ll second that!!
We’re approaching a point where the exposure will force the mild-mannered to, quote Obama, “get in their faces”.
The Country is proving itself not to be the pushover the Leftist turds anticipated.
which dictator shall we call him? or shall we run all their names together...
HitTroVezZEROlini
What army is going to enforce this? Ignore it.
Get ready, be ready, prepare. I think you are right.
Barack Mugabe Obama.
Listen, you did not directly answer my question, instead you floated a speculative theory that the Roberts’ court was in the 0’s back pocket. I have demonstrated that that two can play that game. So next time, why don’t you give some concrete proof instead of your speculation?
You assumed you were worthy of a cogent reply ... mistake, n00b.
I have seen in the past where this could be humorous or entertaining...but today it scares the hell out of me....this guy (Obama) is nothing but a puppet/spy/communist in the Oval office...I honestly have no where to turn...all that’s left are politicians...the statesmen have left the room
I asked you to support your allegation. You said the court refused to look at NBC, therefore they must be O's protectors. But without supporting evidence, your thought is just speculation. I made a equally preposterous and unsupported claim. You harangue me for my response, when yours is of equal speculation.
By denigrating me, you are no better than Obama. Attack the questioner instead of the question.
And I will repeat my original post:
You: HAH! The subPreme Roberts Court is Barry the Bastard’s primary protector. Didn’t you know?
Me: Can you support that accusation?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.