Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Executive Order Would Force Contract-Seeking Companies To Reveal Donations

May 4, 2011 by  

Executive order would force contract-seeking companies to reveal donationsWhite House officials have confirmed that an executive order is being drafted that would force certain companies to disclose their political contributions.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the order would require organizations applying for a Federal government contract to disclose their political donations totaling more than $5,000. The measure would implement part of last year's Disclose Act, which was favored by Democrats but failed to pass Congress.

A draft of the executive order says the policy aims to ensure that the Federal contracting system is free from "political activity or political favoritism," according to the media outlet. However, the draft does not include Federal employee labor unions, which are traditional allies of the Democratic Party.

The order is in response to last year's Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, which determined that corporate political donations should not be limited because of protections granted by the 1st Amendment.

Officials from the State of Montana are challenging the ruling, saying that the 1st Amendment applies to individuals and not corporations. Free Speech for People, an advocacy organization, has formed a coalition to join the State's fight to overturn the Supreme Court decision.

The ruling "is contrary not only to our republican principles of government, but also to American principles of free and fair commerce among free people and the States," according to a brief filed by the coalition.

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Executive Order Would Force Contract-Seeking Companies To Reveal Donations”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Jeremy Leochner

    Personally I think it would be resaonable to require both Unions and Corporations to disclose such information when applying for a federal contract. Perhaps the great issue is the special status corporations get in that they are classified as having the rights of an individual which Unions do not have. I think corporations are not the same as individuals. Many corporations already have more lobbyists in washington than congressmen so I would think it reasonable to say that undisclosed contributions or unlimited contributions is a bit much. That being said no special interests are unique in deserving more or less analysis and expecting disclousure so I would think it reasonable to have Unions disclose the same information. Though I would at the same time suggest Citizens United be repealed so Unions and Corporations could be back on the same footing in terms of status and rights.

    • Klaus

      You don’t really believe this will apply to unions, do you?

      • Mick

        Klaus

        You’re right about that.
        The only time the unions will be on the level is when we boot them out for ever,,
        They have created a total mess of tne integrity people once had with their greed and so called rights..
        Putting the screws to ligit companies and tax payers hurt America’s will to succeed and keep the citizens under their crooked thumbs.

        • DavidL

          Wake up! The USA is a union. The Republican Party is a union. The Democratic Party is a union. The Tea Party is a union. The AMA is a union. The ABA is a union. The NRA is a union. The Chamber of Commerce is a union. The Conservative Party is a union. The list goes on and on and on. The issue is not “eliminate all unions”, the issue is regulate them in the public interest so they are fair and legal. That is what is done now.

          Remember what Ronald Reagan said: “Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, liberty is lost.”

          There is nothing wrong with requiring all political donations to be in the open, without exception, from all contributors. Only people who have something to hide oppose this measure.

          • Vigilant

            “There is nothing wrong with requiring all political donations to be in the open, without exception, from all contributors. Only people who have something to hide oppose this measure.”

            Federal election laws ALREADY require such disclosure. The move this article addresses is the politization of the Gov’t contracting process. Since the public record of political contributions is already in existence, why do you think this overkill will accomplish anything above-board?

            The astute mind will see it for what it is: a tool to punish contractors for their support of one party over another. The Democrats don’t realize that, once they are out of power, the Repubs could do the same thing, based on this proposal. It’s dirty politics and nothing more.

          • Vigilant

            And consider this: “The measure would implement part of last year’s Disclose Act, which was favored by Democrats but failed to pass Congress.”

            Now, what in the HELL is this but unConstitutionally circumventing the legislative process? Quite simply, Obama couldn’t get his way legally and Constitutionally, so he once again uses the Executive Order to break the law.

            IT FAILED TO PASS THE CONGRESS! What part of that do you not understand?

          • Bus

            The first company that gets hit with this should be running to the courts and get the whole process tied up in the judicial process until we can change the executive in the government. This is unconstitutional and you’d think a professor would understand that.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I suppose. Im just saying it would support it if they did. I think the problem is right now Corporations have better status then Unions. A status I dont feel they deserve or need.

    • Bob from Calif

      Why does the the government think that it has the right to know what anyone contributes to what ever entity they like. Its none of their business. This is just another measure used to manipulate and control.

  • Doug

    Really Jerry you union stooge. How about all of us have the rights of unions. Like if you drive down my street you have to pay me a toll or should I say protection money. Why should anyone have to pay a dime to anyone to get or keep a job. The unions are nothing but organized crime. Here a thought Jerry if unions are so good why don’t they go into business and start car companies and other companies if they are such stewarts of job creation? You want to do things the right way then how about politicians can’t use their own money or any money from anyone else. We the citizens will give depending on the office you are running for and amount of money to use. You can’t go over that amount with your money or anyone else’s money. That way you have a level playing field and we can start getting representatives in the government are people for the people not for their bank accounts.

    What do you say Jerry?

    • Vigilant

      “Here a thought Jerry if unions are so good why don’t they go into business and start car companies and other companies if they are such stewarts of job creation?”

      Now that Obama’s selling off the last shares of GM, at an $11 billion LOSS to the taxpayers, the unions he illegally placed in charge of the company will be running the show. Based on recent share prices, the unions are continuing to ruin the company.

      It was the $30-some odd billion in unfunded union pension liabilities that put GM in trouble in the first place. Obama ILLEGALLY defaulted on the bondholder’s equity in order to put the unions in charge, and now the unions will inherit the wind. So be it.

  • TIME

    When were Executive ORDERS first allowed by a US President?

    And for you know it all’s, Would this format not VIOD the very base of how this Nation was set up?
    As in the three Arms that create “Checks and Balances?”
    Would it not VOID such?

    Is it not a form of NAZI like Government, not unlike in Germany in the 1930′s where thier Congress / Senate & Court system like systems could be over ruled by Hitler at any time he wanted to?
    As a matter of fact he did abolish them in 1938 when he stated at that “Time of expansion of the state it was a necessary step to complete the healing from WW I to make Germany Whole again.”

    Are Executive Orders not 100% the same as HITLERS Powers?

    • Bob from Calif

      It sure looks like that is what is going on Time.

  • HHH

    @Doug, Sounds like you’ve got the executive order down pat….. now it should get implemented. The mid size and large corporations enjoy an economic advantage that no individual will ever enjoy. Union membership is down to 7% of the workforce, with a limited amount of political influence.

    • Vigilant

      Surely you jest!

      The political influence wielded by unions is inordinately high. See http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php if you believe me.

      • Bus

        its the government worker unions that are the problem. Auto workers, Teamsters…have a blast, if you go too far in your demands you end up hurting the company and putting more people out of work. But who is the opponent of government workers? The people who pay the taxes, and when they push too hard the legislators just raise taxes on everyone else to keep the union workers happy. Plus they use their inner position in government to lobby for sweet deals.
        We need more Reagan’s who had the _____ to fire the air traffic controllers which kept the unions under control for a little while, of course the community organizer who doesn’t understand basic economics just wants to get more cookies out of the cookie jar without understanding that someone has to do the baking.

    • Ellen

      Union membership is at 7% in private industry and 40% in government jobs. Unions should never have been allowed in govt jobs in the first place. Obama is trying to get a law passed that requires private companies to unionize if just a few of their employees want to (vs. a majority of employees). This is the Democrat way of trying to get the private sector heavily unionized again. Apparently, he is unable to see the failures of his policies (unions, socialism) even though we’ve experienced the failures and Europe is falling apart because of them.

      • Mick

        Ohhhhh !! Ellen

        How so right you are,,,
        I am from France originally came here in 69 and has gone back at least a dozen times since and have seen more and more deterioration of work ethics each trip.
        Small businesses cannot afford to hire people in fear of being stuck with incompetent, unreliable money hungry people that they will not be able to fire.does it sound familiar…….

  • Raggs

    Well it sure looks like obama has his panties bunched up again…
    So it’s fine that the unions are exempt from this unconstitutional oreder as long as they ride on obamas shirt tail. But give the private sector the right to contribute against obama and all hell breaks loose.

    I will be SO glad when 12 is here and I can celebrate obamas defeat!

    • Bob from Calif

      Don’t be so sure that the fix isn’t in. The Donald may be Obamas Trump card in the hole, just like Perot was for Clinton.

      • 45caliber

        Let’s hope not, but you may be right.

    • http://?? Joe H.

      Raggs,
      I pray you are right!!! I don’t believe we can survive another four years of Nobummer, especially one that is under the mistaken idea that all support his socialist ideas!!

  • Doug

    HHH a limited amount of political influence??? I think you better go and see what names are on Obams quest list it is nothing but the enforcers for the unions or other communist and maxist! You might want to go and look up were unions came from you might see the RED in it! I’m a big boy I don’t need someone to represent me to my employer, if I don’t like the way things are going I can bring up to my boss or leave and find another job! That the beauty of America you not a slave and can seek employments elsewhere. You also might want to look at the Labor Board and see how the idiot in cheif has stacked the deck with union lawyers and other non thinking communist followers. Also you might want to see what Stalin did we all his usefull idiots once they got control of the masses!

    • Eddie47d

      Good ol’ Doug putting the fear in his smear. Unions evolved from cruel and very exploitative corporations. Those same corporations that once again want more power to stiffle their employees health,safety and compensation. Citizens United and the Chamber of Commerce pushed for this disparity in giving corporations more rights than an individual.The majority of Americans (73%)disapproved of this corporate status yet these corporates played this name game of Citizens United when most citizens were united against them. These same elites are the ones running our banking system and paying themselves outrageous salaries. I believe they have exploited us long enough and we hardly need these corporate shenanigans to be super sized. Now that is real control of the masses and our voice has been shot down another notch.

      • Vigilant

        Eddie,

        You’ve ignored and/or failed to answer every time I’ve posted the link http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php It’s posted again for the benefit of any newcomers to see what a line of BS you’re pitching.

        How dense can you be to fail to recognize the way-out-of-wack influence that unions have on the political process? They are the BIG TIME donors to the coffers of the Democratic Party, but your Marxist hatred of Capitalism prevents you from seeing it.

        And we’re tired of hearing about the union’s part in improving unsafe working conditions and equitable wages. That happened more than a half century ago. Today’s unions are nothing more than a corrupt business, squeezing the consumers and taxpayers with no regard for the good of the country.

        • Eddie47d

          Corporate elites are the ones putting the squeeze on the American worker. You are the one blinded by their greedy habits. Check out the Chambers donations and how they are influencing politics. Power from the top is corrupting us faster than from the few unions that are left. Don’t be so naive Vigilant.

          • Vigilant

            Naivete may be the least of my personality traits, it’s the hallmark of yours, Eddie.

            Have you even condescended to look at the link I privided? And if so, do you still deny the in-your-face facts that have been presented?

          • Vigilant

            And what the hell “Chambers” are you talking about?

          • Eddie47d

            Chamber of Commerce; a private political action committee on the right. It’s funny they would choose a name of a government agency to solicit money from folks. Darn sneaky of them.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          Vigilant,
          Actually the first unions started almost a century ago and since the 70s have done nothing but lose jobs for workers and raise prices!!

  • HHH

    Doug, Doug, Doug, YOU are SO angry……. whats up with that????

    • Vigilant

      Any genuine American should be mad as hell. If you’re not distressed by the statist tactics of this leftist administration then you are part of the problem.

      Executive orders as used by this socialist are tools to illegally bypass the legislative functions of the Congress per Article 1 of the Constitution. The specific Exec. Order cited ignores the legitimacy of the SCOTUS ruling, and will be used as a political plumb to contract with Corporations whose contribution records have favored the Democrats.

      This president is no stranger to unConstitutional actions. When he realized that Cap and Trade legislation would have been DOA, he bypassed the Constitution by using the EPA to achieve these ends. The appointment of a multitude of czars are helping him to achieve the same ends. The actions of this government are deplorable.

  • http://com i41

    Since Onumnutts and his radical foreingers have ove a billion for his reelection , I guess his executive order will keep his money save from exposure. The excutive order to outlaw private property isn’t to far behind or maybbe is hidden out in the order. Just like the 108 biilion that was hidden out in the Nocare bill and the new 2000+ regulations hitting everyone. When you all vote democrap, you are definitely liking the marxist/communist socialist Soros democrap party’s master plans and style. We got the Federal Reserve from a communist dumbocrap, as well as the communist designed Dept of Agriculture from a lap buddy of the same dumbocrap.

  • Raggs

    Well here we go… I can already see that the unions will flog any business with threats and boycotts that is in support of a canidate other than obama… EXTORTION by the unions will be the norm backed up by eric holder… This is going to cause a lot of problems…

    • Eddie47d

      The most exploitation I see is coming from the big egos at corporate headquarters. Give me more bonuses or I’ll quit.Give more an extra $10 million or I’ll leave. Give me a golden parachute worth 100 million or I’ll move this business overseas. Give me unbelievable stock options or I won’t make money for the company. These corporates have been threatening investors,the American citizens and our country long enough.They are thieves who cannibalize their own company until we all squeal uncle. All you brave slanderers of unions and their members who make $10-30 dollars an hour and are just trying to make a decent living. Corporates are not creating jobs even with tax breaks. Corporations are still sending jobs overseas even when their outlandish salaries and compensations are sinking those companies. That is pure thievery. Yet you have the audacity to bow down to Citizens United who help corporations and their executives make out like bandits.

      • Raggs

        You are as obama, a hater of Capitolism and a free market system.
        Do you really think that the unions are on your side?…
        A little wake-up for you… Your money is the only thing that they want.. Your money gives them power, power is greed! power is corruption!

        • Eddie47d

          Raggs …and American corporations and the banking elites hold the power. That is your corruption and as they grow corruption flows.

          • Raggs

            Your completely lost!

          • 45caliber

            Eddie:

            The ones who hold the power are those who control the money. That includes the corporations, the banks, … AND the union officials.

            Many times the unions give far more than either of the other two to the various people and parties. This bill exempts them – unfairly. ALL should be required to expose their gifts.

            This would, however, give the various members of a union the right to sue the union for giving their money to a candidate they oppose. And the courts have ruled that they can force the union to either give the same money to both sides, return the money to the union members against this, or can’t give it at all. The unions want to prevent that at all costs.

      • 45caliber

        Eddie: And the unions say, “Give me more money or I’ll have everyone walk out. Give me more benefits or we shut you down.”

        But that if more fair than the CEOs saying the same thing?

        A CEO can’t shut down a company. A union can. At most a CEO can go elsewhere – and they can easily replace him.

        • 45caliber

          “But that if more fair than the CEOs saying the same thing?”

          But that IS more fair than the CEOs saying the same thing?

        • Eddie47d

          I haven’t seen anywhere were CEOs have earned what they are making. At least within the big corporations. Since some small businesses have CEOs and I don’t know what their salaries are my opinion shouldn’t reflect on them.

  • jopa

    After the SC ruling on campaign contributions GM and Chrysler could each give Obama one billion dollars in support and we would never know.With the profits they are showing today this may happen.The White House may be shooting themselves in the foot.

    • 45caliber

      The idea is to threaten the companies with a lack of contracts if they give more to the GOP than the Dems. But the unions are not so threatened. So the companies give NOTHING to both parties or they give the exact same to both. The unions can give different amounts – or even none to one party – without being pointed out.

  • CTH

    Since when and where under the constitution, did that usurper Obama acquire the right to make enforceable laws regarding anything?

  • jopa

    CTH:Would you take a moment please and explain your comment?

    • 45caliber

      Perhaps I can. There is NO Constitutional method for the President to make any law. Congress MUST be the only ones who can do that. The President can only sign, refuse to sign, or veto laws as passed by Congress. The courts are also not allowed, by the Constitution, to make any laws. They can only rule on judgements under those laws or (in the case of the SCOTUS) rule whether or not the new law is Constitutional – which most aren’t.

  • http://com i41

    Raggs, you forget edee is a generation ward of the government, who probably is part of affermative action slubs, who use government mandates to get get ahead in life, not on abilities but color of their shin. Like Onumnutts their midget mental thinking is that government needs to be the controlling enity and creater of jobs using mandates and regulations. Pretty much a tribal mentality where everyone has a group hug and a slow medation lagtime, just like Onumnutts does. The need to have a group of like minded idoits to make a decision for them. These simple minded mental midgets blame everyone else except their beleif in a centerlized control that harms private businesses and job creation.

    • Raggs

      True… I find no pleasure in arguing with him even as I give him a benefit of some day waking up.

    • 45caliber

      i41:

      True. I thought it interesting when I read this morning that when the plan to attack Osama was given to him for approval he had to “sleep on it” before making a decision. It took him 16 hours.

      • Raggs

        Now thats a looonnnggg game of golf. or hoops….. I wonder what was for lunch?

  • 45caliber

    I can see one fast problem with this. The unions are exempt. That means they can contribute whatever they want to any party or person and no one will know how much they give to whom.

    On the other hand, any company that might hope to eventually get a government contract can’t afford to give to either party – or must give the exact same amount to BOTH parties – to be able to get the contract.

    In other words, this is rigged to insure that the Democrats get far more money from unions AND corporate companies than the GOP which gets it only from the corporate companies.

    To be fair, let’s insist that ALL contributions be above board and in the open. Not just those of the GOP. Then we can see who really is getting bribes.

  • Harry Sothern

    Well what a surprise! So Unions are exempt from this disclosure law that private companies must obey. Remember that Unions also got a waiver that exempts them from Obamacare, that healthcare nightmare that he wants the rest of us to suffer with. Also some of Obama’s biggest private campaign donors got the same privilege as his union buddies.

    So Onama wants to Spread the Wealth around to some – but to Spread the Misery around to the rest of us.

    • Raggs

      I’m proud to see a patriotic American with his eyes open!… :)

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Raggs,
        a punch up side the head has a way of doing that!!!

  • jopa

    That is fantastic when it only took 16 hours for President Obama to figure out how to take out Bin Laden.Bush had 8 years to do it but only tried for two.We finally have some greatness in the White House.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.