Skip to comments.Obama order on contractor donations feared stalled
Posted on 06/14/2011 3:07:48 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON, June 14 (Reuters) - The White House is under pressure from consumer activists to follow through with its plan to force government contractors to disclose their political contributions, a rule that companies say will politicize awards of government business.
Consumer group Public Citizen said on Tuesday it is among those worried that the White House attempt to throw more light on campaign spending will be put on the shelf after harsh criticism from the business community.
President Barack Obama is working on an order to compel bidders for federal contracts to disclose two years worth of political contributions.
In addition to donations above $5,000 to candidates, the order would also require disclosure of contributions to third parties that fund political advertisements.
Public Citizen pressed Obama in a letter sent on Tuesday to sign the order. It said that before recent court decisions and regulatory rulings, contractors routinely disclosed such information.
Outside groups spent tens of millions of dollars in the last election without disclosing their donors, and activists say that figure could reach the billion-dollar level or more in the 2012 campaign season.
The order has been hit by withering criticism from business groups, which say it would politicize contracting at a time when the administration faces Republican charges that its policies are hostile to business and inhibit hiring.
"The executive order injects a very real chance that prospective contractors that fund political causes unpopular with the government or the current administration may find that they don't get a contract award due to political discrimination," said Chamber of Commerce spokeswoman Blair Latoff.
But even some top Democrats such as Assistant House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer have expressed doubts.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
The problem is (for dems) that dems in the house realize that GOPer will be president one day.
Public Citizen represents how many consumers or how many are in their consumer group?
Apparently, they have a political agenda similar to their AnointedIdiot, cause this was not about transparency; it (the disclosure of political contributions) was all, and has always been, about politics. =.=
I prefer the Canadian solution- we banned corporate and union donations and put a limit on individual contributions. It effectively ended the era of big-money politics here and enabled the Conservatives to win. The beauty of it is that no political party can survive without a large base of citizens motivated enough to put up their own money.
When did that happen? Can you point me to a description? Thx
>>I prefer the Canadian solution- we banned corporate and union donations and put a limit on individual contributions. It effectively ended the era of big-money politics here and enabled the Conservatives to win. The beauty of it is that no political party can survive without a large base of citizens motivated enough to put up their own money.<<
Down here, we have a thing called “The 1st Amendment.” The fact you implemented a tougher version of MecCain/Feingold just means you don’t really respect freedom. You might wave at it from time to time, but you don’t really want the responsibilities that go with it.
It happened around 2004. It was brought in by the Liberal government- the whole deal was that corporate and union donations were banned, and the trade-off was an annual subsidy to each party of $2 per vote received in the most recent election. This year the ruling Conservatives will be eliminating the subsidy but keeping the restrictions in place.
Your point is valid, but the problem is the lack of transparency. In a perfect world anybody could give as they please as long as it’s on the public record, but these days with unions having the power to appropriate wages and individual shareholders of corporations having little say over how company money is spent, campaign finance is a snake pit.