<\/strong>Should companies bidding for government contracts be required to disclose their political donations? An executive order under consideration by President Obama says, \u201cYes.\u201d But Republicans [and some Democrats, too] say, \u201cNo.\u201d<\/p>\n In an effort to reduce the likelihood that government contracts are payoffs for campaign contributions and other political expenditures, President Obama has drafted an executive order that would require companies bidding for government contracts to disclose their campaign spending. That sounds like a good idea, right? Openness and transparency are values that cross political lines. Who would publicly come out such an idea? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is: lots of politicians whose re-election campaigns depend on the huge, secret corporate donations legitimized by the Supreme Court\u2019s Citizens United<\/em> decision. In fact, some politicians are so worried that President Obama might actually wield his executive power, that they have introduced an anti-transparency\u00a0bill that would pre-empt the President’s executive order<\/a>.<\/p>\n What it says, and what it\u2019s about<\/strong><\/p>\n The initial wording of the proposed executive order says: “Every contracting department and agency shall require all entities submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose certain political contributions that may have been made within the two years prior to submission of their offer.”<\/p>\n The order includes all contributions to political parties or federal candidates or expenditures on their behalf and would require disclosure of contributions that exceed $5,000 in a given year.<\/p>\n It\u2019s clear that the executive order is designed as a creative answer to Citizens United<\/em>.\u00a0 In a May 4, 2011 press release, Public Citizen gave this rationale:<\/p>\n The need for such action is directly traceable to the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission<\/em>, which lifted restrictions on political spending by corporations. The decision paved the way for companies to make massive expenditures from their general treasuries to influence election outcomes, including by funneling money through front groups that do not coordinate with candidates.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Public Citizen added that the new Citizens United <\/em>rules invite an increase in \u201cpay-to-play\u201d abuses<\/a>\u2026<\/p>\n \u201c\u2026where contractors make campaign-related expenditures to obtain contracts, or at least favorable consideration of bids. There is no question that Citizens United will facilitate more and more severe contracting corruption, in the form of \u201cpay to play\u201d abuses, both federally and in the states. The pay-to-play system encourages fraud and abuses of power, prevents contracts from being awarded to businesses based on merit, wastes taxpayer dollars, and facilitates privatization and contracting out of services that otherwise could or should be provided by government agencies.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Of course, the wording of the proposed executive order is merely draft language, and until it\u2019s signed, it\u2019s subject to change. But those sentences have ruffled a lot of political feathers. The controversy started earlier this year, when someone leaked the draft to a former Bush-administration official with an axe to grind: his appointment to the Federal Election Commission was blocked by Democrats. He published the draft on a conservative website, and that\u2019s when the games began.<\/p>\n Who\u2019s for it, and why<\/strong><\/p>\n Early in May 2011, 22 government-watchdog and openness organizations<\/a> sent a letter to President Obama, urging him to sign the transparency-in- government-contracting executive order. The letter pointed out:<\/p>\n …\u00a0the widespread public perception that companies and their executives who provide the most generous campaign financial support to winning candidates are rewarded with the most lucrative contracts. On far too many occasions, that perception has been validated by scandal and the disgrace, resignation or even conviction of some governmental officials.\u201d<\/p>\n The proposed executive order attacks the perception and the reality of such \u201cpay-to-play\u201d arrangements by shining a light on political spending by contractors. It simply requires that a\u00a0business entity, as a condition of bidding on a government contract, disclose the campaign contributions and expenditures of the company, its senior management and affiliated political action committees for all to see, so the public may judge whether contracts are being awarded\u00a0based on merit rather than campaign money.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The letter also notes that the requirement of transparency is not a new concept in government contracting: more than a dozen states already require campaign-finance disclosure from government contractors.<\/p>\n \u201cThe flip side of transparency is secrecy,\u201d the letter continues, \u201cand the specter of hundreds of millions of dollars in secret campaign cash coming from companies that derive much of their wealth from government contracts.\u201d<\/p>\n Also lining up behind the proposed order are many Democrats, including Sen. Nancy Pelosi, who recently said: \u201cWhat we are aiming at in this is to [target] those who have this endless, undisclosed money going into campaigns \u2014 again, in a way that I think undermines our democracy.\u201d<\/p>\n Reps. Henry Cuellar [D-TX] and Robert Andrews [D-NJ, have also voiced their support for Obama\u2019s draft \u201cOne of the questions is whether he has the authority to do this thing by executive order,\u201d Andrews told The Hill. \u201cI think he does … and I\u2019d encourage him to use it. The more sunshine in government, the better.\u201d<\/p>\n Who\u2019s against it, and what they\u2019re saying<\/strong><\/p>\n It didn\u2019t take long for politicians beholden to corporate donors to line up against the proposed executive order. Naturally, their arguments against transparency in government contracting don\u2019t mention their obvious allegiances to the government contractors [details here<\/a>] who keep them comfortably ensconced in Washington. Instead, they rail against\u2014no surprise\u2014government intrusion and purported politicization of government contracting. Examples:<\/p>\n To underscore the hypocrisy of Congressional representatives who oppose the transparency order, Huffington Post recently reported that the Public Campaign Action Fund sent letters to a handful of House Committee Chairs<\/a> alleging that their opposition to the executive order was being done as a gift to big-time donors:<\/p>\n The group noted that major federal contractors had contributed large sums of money to several key lawmakers<\/a>, including Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) \u2014 who has received $122,150 from the defense contractor Lockheed Martin during his career \u2014 and House Science Committee Chairman Ralph Hall (R-Texas), who has received $45,531 from the national security contractor Raytheon\u2019s PAC and employees during his time in Congress.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The congressman the group highlighted above the others, however, was committee chairman Darrel Issa, who has received $66,950 alone from the scientific, engineering and technology applications company SAIC\u2019s PAC and employees.<\/p>\n The proposed executive order\u2019s natural enemies, of course, are the companies who both compete for government contracts and make contributions to politicians with contracting clout. Their arguments against the proposed plan offer no surprises:<\/p>\n <\/strong>Transparency advocates worry that opponents of the draft order are winning the messaging battle<\/a>, partly because Republicans seized on the leaked draft early and framed the issue as one of \u201cpoliticization,\u201d and partly because Democrats\u2014perhaps because of their own corporate allegiances\u2014have remained mostly silent or are siding with Republicans in opposing it. Prominent among these Democrats are Sen. Claire McCaskill [D-MO], and Senate Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer [MD], plus Sen. Joe Lieberman [I-CT], who caucuses with the Democrats.<\/p>\n Talking points<\/strong><\/p>\n Irony and hypocrisy abound in the debate over transparency in government contracting. For those who say that demanding disclosure is tantamount to politicization, proponents point out that government contracting is already highly politicized and corrupt. A comment from Firedoglake<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n
\n