Obama order could make corporate political spending public

[Ichingcarpenter]

An executive order being considered by President Obama would require companies bidding for federal contracts to disclose political spending they may now keep secret.


Under the proposed order, all companies bidding for federal contracts would be required to disclose money spent on political campaign efforts, including dollars forwarded through associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other private groups.

Election spending by such organizations soared to new heights in 2010, thanks in part to the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case, which allowed corporations and unions to make direct political expenditures. The majority opinion endorsed disclosure of the new political spending, but many groups have formed as nonprofits, which do not have to reveal their funding sources.

If Obama issued the draft executive order, he would effectively discourage previously undisclosed donations to groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which — with some exceptions — have been generally helping Republican candidates. It would also give the president a chance to quiet critics who want him to be more outspoken in demanding disclosure of large contributors.

But business interests are trying to quash the measure.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-0509-donor-disclose-20110508,0,5609555.story



Best News I've read in a while, I hope he signs it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

1. If he signs this he'll win over a bunch of voters

and live up to the transparency thing he talked about.

Maybe DU should send a message of support to the White House?

[Vidar]

6. Good idea.

[sufrommich]

2. I hope he does it. If we have to live with corporate personhood

from the Supreme Court,at least make them practice a good amount of transparency. I believe many corporations would opt out of political donations if it meant consumer boycotts.

[kestrel91316]

3. K AND EFFIN' R!!

[ieoeja]

4. There is a serious problem with this idea.

I think it is safe to say none of us want the government handing out contracts based on the domestic politics of those seeking the contracts. But if another Bush administration wanted to do so, this would certainly be handing them a necessary tool for doing so, wouldn't it?

Why make it easier for the crooks? They *will* take back the White House at some point.

In fact, this is one of the major arguments against the Governors wanting to make state employees at-will. By taking the civil service unions out of the equation, they are setting themselves up for cronyism in the higher and firing of public employees. We seem to be rushing back to the days of Gov Len Small (R-IL; 1920s) who went so far as to dock all state employee's pay for mandatory campaign donations.

[notesdev]

5. there's another flaw as well

these companies will simply shift the donations through to the subcontractors, and we'll end up knowing even less about who is really ponying up for whom.

[applegrove]

7. YES WE CAN!