Obama to bypass Congress to sign Disclose Act into law?

[CallMeJoe]

They contain the same base information. Plus a quick google search would have prevented CallMeJoe's response. He was just lazy and still wished to voice his partisan opinion. Gosh this forum gets dumber by the day.
And the rest of you! Why are you turning this into a corporation versus union debate? I personally do not agree with this supposed order, even if unions were not exempt.

I read the link in the OP, and followed that to its original source. All I found was speculation and innuendo, so I expressed my reservations and said I would wait for more information before getting worked up over it.

Your characterization of this as "partisan opinion? Not a potent enough <irony> tag on the entire 'net.

 

[Patranus]

Are you against all executive orders then?

Executive orders should be used to enforce laws/policies passed by congress, not create new laws/policies.

 

[Bowfinger]

Don't put money in the right pockets, and you don't get a contract. They can keep track of and do that already, but Obama's method streamlines the process.

As opposed to "DO put money in the right pockets and you DO get a contract?" That seems even more undesirable (though obviously the ideal is having contracts awarded based solely on price and performance). When in doubt, I'd prefer to err on the side of transparency.

I think exempting unions is wrong, but I'm not sure it has much effect in practice. I would think the only unions contracting with the government are federal employee unions, but perhaps I've missing something. I expect union leaders mostly donate to Democrats since they tend to be less hostile to workers, but I think it's reasonable to require disclosure anyway. Obama & his administration are wrong giving them special consideration.

Of course I'm in favor of disclosure across the board. I think all political contributions should be public information, both those directly to candidates and those made to the various advocacy groups.

 

[wuliheron]

Because they are powerless to do so and party unity is THE most important thing in government. Dems will no sooner make Obama look bad than the Reps with Bush. Loose the Presidency over... well, anything? Not going to happen. One of my favorite sayings is "Party uber alles". Actions suggest there's too much truth in it.

They aren't powerless. These are the guys who write the laws including the damn constitution and they've been steadily giving the president more power for half a century. They aren't just flopping around helpless, but actively giving as much power to the executive branch as they dare. If they wanted to take it all back right now they could.

You can blame it on partisan politics all you want, but both sides are doing the same thing and it parallels the same trend of power and wealth concentrating into fewer hands since the days of Lincoln.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

They aren't powerless. These are the guys who write the laws including the damn constitution and they've been steadily giving the president more power for half a century. They aren't just flopping around helpless, but actively giving as much power to the executive branch as they dare. If they wanted to take it all back right now they could.

You can blame it on partisan politics all you want, but both sides are doing the same thing and it parallels the same trend of power and wealth concentrating into fewer hands since the days of Lincoln.

Ok, you are the multiple personality which is Congress. I'm the president. Stop me.

 

[wuliheron]

Ok, you are the multiple personality which is Congress. I'm the president. Stop me.

Turn that around, you are the president, I am the 535 members of congress. Stop us.

 

[fskimospy]

Executive orders should be used to enforce laws/policies passed by congress, not create new laws/policies.

That's ridiculous and our government could never function that way, nor would it. Why do people on here who know so little about our government continue to tell others how it should be run? Congress takes a long time to pass laws and in the absence of congressional authority executive orders can frequently fill the breach in times of need, creating new policies as necessary.

Interestingly enough I'm willing to bet that if I feel like it I can find a whole load of Bush policies that you defended which were passed by executive order, 'bypassing Congress'.

They can't create new laws, but this isn't a new law. The executive branch has wide authority for the terms under which government contracts are awarded, and it's really hard to see how requiring contractors to reveal their attempts to influence government before getting a government contract is outside of that authority. Precisely because it isn't a law it can be overturned by Congress or the next President if he feels like it. That's why executive orders are a bad way to implement these kinds of policies.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by dmcowen674
Actually it is a smart move to help re-level the playing field.

Since the Supreme Court gave unlimited money and voting powers to Corporations we should at least know what individuals are behind the unlimited money and power at said Corporations and which side they are supporting.

I agree Dave, as long as it applies to everyone. Unions shouldn't get a pass.

That's the key, someone always gets a pass

 

[davmat787]

What is the reason for exempting unions? The pessimist in me thinks it is because it would show what many already know: The vast majority of those in unions, and unions themselves, support Democrats for obvious reasons.

 

[Jhhnn]

The whole bit about unions is mostly a red herring. Unions don't have the kind of financial freedom enjoyed by corporate entities in the first place, and it's only *unions with government contracts*, an exceedingly small &#37; of the workforce.

So forget the union angle, as I think Obama should, as well. The reason the Right doesn't like it is because they want to exploit the anonymity enabled by the Citizens' United ruling, and to take money from stockholders to do it. They'll use a series of opaque non profit & corporate fronts to obscure sources, all with serious sounding patriotic names so that we'll never really know who said what, or who paid for it to be said.

Anybody who thinks that's honest doesn't know what the word means.

 

[cubby1223]

^^^
seriously?

The reason I don't like this is because politics is a disease. It infects people. Turns normal people into irrational jerks. We don't need our American concept of "politics" to spread any further than it already is. And for example you cannot take me at my word, you will instead assume I'm making excuses for "the right" and am cheerleading for Republicans, that is the mindset that becomes infectious.

Positives:
-A very small percentage of people will be content thinking campaigns are more transparent

Cons:
-Government has greater ability to hand out contracts based on who donated how much to which party
-Companies may be targeted by activist groups for the actions of individuals working at the company
-Companies may target employees for donating to "the wrong" party, or not donating enough to "the right" party.


All the "lefties" say that Republicans do not want this order because they have an advantage without it.

Well think about it - the "political" response to that would be, if (R) has an advantage preventing this, then (D) have the political advantage enacting this. How can one possibly separate out whether the Dems are doing this for principle, for the public, or for their political gain? Then someone like a certain forum regular comes along and reminds us that the ends justify the means - anything that puts more progressives in power, and fewer Republicans, is ultimately serving the greater good, and thus by default is the morally right thing to do.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please, Cubby. The Citizen's United ruling amounts to an enormous advantage for wealthy interests, particularly given that they can also take stockholders' money and use it for political purposes that stockholders may not agree with. The Republican Party represents those interests in word and deed, admits it, revels in it. Even in the face of abject failure of their policies, they're still pushing trickledown economics and deregulated everything.

So far as it goes, govt contracts are awarded on a low bid basis, except when Dick & Dub were picking logistics providers for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Companies may be targeted for boycotts & etc for actions of the corporation itself, corporate officers & BOD, rightfully so.

Individuals can already be targeted for political contributions, because those are by and large a matter of public record.

Multimillion dollar campaigns supporting one candidate or another are now possible without the actual funders being known at all, some of them outrageous lies & outright slander. Once that's figured out, the actual perps can tut-tut with the best of them at the Country Club, because there won't be any way to show that they paid for it to be done.

Politics should require some actual courage, and this country isn't like much of the rest of the world where the losers get shot, either, so it's not asking much to demand that people account for all the free speech they've paid to get. It's not like signing the Declaration of Independence, at all.

 

[Darwin333]

And if you read the links you gave VS what the op posted you would see that CallMeJoe is correct. The OPs little peice has a lot of BS and junk in it.

All Obama might do is "require anyone submitting bids for government work to disclose two years' worth of political contributions and expenditures. The order would apply if the total exceeded $5,000 to a given recipient during a given year."
It does not block someone from donating and its only when you apply for Gov Contracts. Don't want to disclouse then don't go for Fed Gov contracts.

I am actually cool with that as long as there are no exceptions to the law. By no exceptions I mean NONE, zip, zilch, natta, if you do X then Y applies.... period. I don't have the time or desire to research this particular law sufficiently but if it specifically exempts anyone then it is a bad law. If it us exactly as you say, give over $5K and you must do this, then I don't see an issue with it. I guarantee its pointless because ALL politicians live and die by the people this is supposed to impact and I seriously doubt that any of them, especially Obama, would make it harder for them to give him/them money.

 

[wuliheron]

I am actually cool with that as long as there are no exceptions to the law. By no exceptions I mean NONE, zip, zilch, natta, if you do X then Y applies.... period. I don't have the time or desire to research this particular law sufficiently but if it specifically exempts anyone then it is a bad law. If it us exactly as you say, give over $5K and you must do this, then I don't see an issue with it. I guarantee its pointless because ALL politicians live and die by the people this is supposed to impact and I seriously doubt that any of them, especially Obama, would make it harder for them to give him/them money.

Its not a law, its an executive order. Similar to the president firing everyone the previous administration hired and changing the policies. The republicans might complain loudly now and claim its unfair, and then turn around and do the same thing when they have a president in office. If everyone really wants to level the playing field on a more permanent basis congress can certainly create a new law and take it out of the president's discretion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Turn that around, you are the president, I am the 535 members of congress. Stop us.

Why? I'm going to ignore you. Going to send the Capitol police? It's never going to come to that. You have a few problems first being your multiple personality disorder. My party is going to subvert yours. You are 535 grumpy dogs and cats who have not and never will be united. I on the other hand am the unitary president. I can and do send troops all over the world without your consent. I'm the head of the military. I just avoid calling it war. My faithful will support it. My party will tell your members how to think and vote. They have Whips for a reason and history has shown how it works. As President in the form of FDR, the SCOTUS feared me. I can stuff it with people who will vote my way.

So I will ignore you as I aways have when it suits me, 535 who cannot tie a shoe without fighting over it.

 

[IGBT]

so I guess we'll find out who George Soros is in collusion with.

 

[PokerGuy]

This would be another big body against freedom and democracy. Government demands to know which parties and/or groups people support before handing out government contracts. Yeah, nothing could possibly go wrong there.....

 

[Jhhnn]

This would be another big body against freedom and democracy. Government demands to know which parties and/or groups people support before handing out government contracts. Yeah, nothing could possibly go wrong there.....

That is sooo lame.

With few exceptions, notably by the Bushistas, govt contracts are awarded on the basis of...

(Drum roll, please!)

Competitive Bids!

The big money comes into play wrt regulation of things like the oil & gas industry, who wrote their own ticket during the Bush years... Or Wall St, same-same... who also got a big fat bailout when the looting spree came to an end.

 

[wuliheron]

So I will ignore you as I aways have when it suits me, 535 who cannot tie a shoe without fighting over it.

Yeah, yeah, life sucks and then you die. That doesn't mean you hand a gun to the burglar breaking into your house. That requires a bit more then just confusion and apoplexy.

 

[Genx87]

That is sooo lame.

With few exceptions, notably by the Bushistas, govt contracts are awarded on the basis of...

(Drum roll, please!)

Competitive Bids!

The big money comes into play wrt regulation of things like the oil & gas industry, who wrote their own ticket during the Bush years... Or Wall St, same-same... who also got a big fat bailout when the looting spree came to an end.

If that were the case then why does the executive branch want to know who donated to who? If it is irrelevant and wont matter in the end due to competitive bids. Why collect the data at all?

 

[PokerGuy]

If that were the case then why does the executive branch want to know who donated to who? If it is irrelevant and wont matter in the end due to competitive bids. Why collect the data at all?

You beat me to it. If government contracts were already a big sordid mess (and I have no doubt they are), and they are handed out to whoever is in favor, then what's the point in requiring this kind of personal information from every officer in every company that does business with the gov? Seems like they just want the information public so radical groups (moveon and their ilk) can go after citizens who don't support the "correct" groups.

 

[Genx87]

You beat me to it. If government contracts were already a big sordid mess (and I have no doubt they are), and they are handed out to whoever is in favor, then what's the point in requiring this kind of personal information from every officer in every company that does business with the gov? Seems like they just want the information public so radical groups (moveon and their ilk) can go after citizens who don't support the "correct" groups.

I was thinking more along the lines of govt contracts being handed out to political favorites myself. Company A donated X amount to Y party. Y party owns the executive branch. Company A gets the contract over company B who donated to the other party.

There is no need for govt to know who donated to what. Sounds like a corruption under the guise transperency. Or worse, political suppression\retribution under the guise of transperency.

 

[classy]

I don't find any thing wrong with this, except maybe the possible exemption for unions. This would be a good move.

 

[werepossum]

As opposed to "DO put money in the right pockets and you DO get a contract?" That seems even more undesirable (though obviously the ideal is having contracts awarded based solely on price and performance). When in doubt, I'd prefer to err on the side of transparency.

I think exempting unions is wrong, but I'm not sure it has much effect in practice. I would think the only unions contracting with the government are federal employee unions, but perhaps I've missing something. I expect union leaders mostly donate to Democrats since they tend to be less hostile to workers, but I think it's reasonable to require disclosure anyway. Obama & his administration are wrong giving them special consideration.

Of course I'm in favor of disclosure across the board. I think all political contributions should be public information, both those directly to candidates and those made to the various advocacy groups.

All political contributions are public record already. Obama is merely putting out notice that if you want a government contract, you'd best get your donations in AND make those donations easy for them to verify.

And of course anyone who disagrees is a racist homophone who's worse than Hitler.

 

[PokerGuy]

All political contributions are public record already. Obama is merely putting out notice that if you want a government contract, you'd best get your donations in AND make those donations easy for them to verify and make sure they are made to a leftist organization.

I went ahead and updated it for ya.

Of course the shortsighted always forget that at some point - 5, 10, 20 years from now - the "other side" is going to be in power and those policies they put in place to hurt the other side will come back to bite them in the butt.