An order by Obama is going to set back fairness in judging those who do business with the federal government, by requiring companies to list who they donate political dollars to.

This egregious order not only forces companies to open up their books in this way, it exempts unions, and all other liberal-based organizations that receive millions of dollars from doing the same.

It's dirty politics at its worst, and yet this WSJ article is the first we've heard of it. There should be major stories on this in every mainstream media, because it opens the doors for widespread corruption.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703992704576305414137806694.html

Writerbuckeye;761857 wrote:It's dirty politics at its worst, and yet this WSJ article is the first we've heard of it. There should be major stories on this in every mainstream media, because it opens the doors for widespread corruption.

Perhaps it's because the mainstream media are part of the line of corruption.

What's the problem with making political donations disclosed? If a construction firm that does business with the government donates a ton of money to the party or campaign of the people that approve their contracts or something I think that's worth knowing about.

I don't see the problem with this.

I Wear Pants;762009 wrote:What's the problem with making political donations disclosed? If a construction firm that does business with the government donates a ton of money to the party or campaign of the people that approve their contracts or something I think that's worth knowing about.

I don't see the problem with this.

Shouldn't unions have to disclose their contributions as well? Of course, we all know who they are contributing to anyway. There is no way anyone who is halfway intelligent can say this is anything but an attack on the GOP. Blatant and being ignored by the leftist media.

I didn't see that part but yes they should. Of course.

I Wear Pants;762009 wrote:What's the problem with making political donations disclosed? If a construction firm that does business with the government donates a ton of money to the party or campaign of the people that approve their contracts or something I think that's worth knowing about.

I don't see the problem with this.

Even if Big Labor gets a free pass? C'mon

I Wear Pants;762023 wrote:I didn't see that part but yes they should. Of course.

Did you even read the column? This opens the door for a lot of corruption -- and it's totally unnecessary. Laws were put in place to prevent just this kind of power play, and now Obama is reversing the field so Democrats can have a huge advantage. This order will almost certainly be used to cull out companies that donate to Republicans. To think otherwise is naive.

It's the Chicago way, after all.

I read the columb and fail to see how companies having to show where they make political campaign contributions is opening the door for corruption. Though it should obviously include unions too.

I Wear Pants;762318 wrote:I read the columb and fail to see how companies having to show where they make political campaign contributions is opening the door for corruption. Though it should obviously include unions too.

You honestly don't think the Dems or Repubs will pass on doing business with companies who contribute to the opposite party? You really don't see anything wrong with this, no possible way it could be used to hurt the other political party? So, if two companies bid for a federal job and one donates heavily to the GOP and one to the Dems, you don't think the Obama administration is going to take the democratic company?

tk421;762408 wrote:You honestly don't think the Dems or Repubs will pass on doing business with companies who contribute to the opposite party? You really don't see anything wrong with this, no possible way it could be used to hurt the other political party? So, if two companies bid for a federal job and one donates heavily to the GOP and one to the Dems, you don't think the Obama administration is going to take the democratic company?

I think that if they do take the Democratic one and they aren't the lowest bidder that they're going to have some serious fallout.

I'd rather be able to see when the corruption happens like is proposed then keep the current one where we have no idea about it (because I'm sure it happens, I'm sure there are companies that make donations to a campaign or party and then conveniently get contracts for a project).

tk421;762408 wrote:You honestly don't think the Dems or Repubs will pass on doing business with companies who contribute to the opposite party? You really don't see anything wrong with this, no possible way it could be used to hurt the other political party? So, if two companies bid for a federal job and one donates heavily to the GOP and one to the Dems, you don't think the Obama administration is going to take the democratic company?

This. A question for you, Pants: why do you think Obama changed something that has been unchanged for decades and when no problems with the system were evident?

Anybody that thinks that the sole reason a company will lose a bid on a project based on political donations, has no concept of federal procurements. In my view, most, nearly all, procurements are based off of costs, meeting requirements and different side asides (small business, etc.)The only time politics would come into play is if a company has a plant in particular Senator's or Congressman's state. Even then though, it is the Program Office that makes the decisions on contracts and bids, not politicians.

Now, politicians can cancel a program, but can't say it should go to one company over another. There have been rules against that for years.
So, I fail to see how this will 1. Change anything, 2. It misses the point on acquisition reform and 3. Even if a company donated millions of dollars to an R, a D can't deny them a contract if they are the only company that can do the task at a reasonable cost.

The whole story misses the point in my view. If we want to clean up how the government makes bids for products we have to change the Federal Acquisition rules, especially in defense.

ptown_trojans_1;762503 wrote:If we want to clean up how the government makes bids for products we have to change the Federal Acquisition rules, especially in defense.

Agree on this 110% and from first-hand experience. Defense contracts are a sham.

This is nothing more than a retaliation against the Chamber of Commerce and the Citizens United decision since BHO couldn't get a disclose act through Congress he is just using executive fiat.

The system worked fine for 70 years, but in the same light for 70 years corporations couldn't fund campaigns until citizens united overturned that.

I am in favor of as much sunlight as can humanly be had to know who is funding what so that a citizenry we can know. That should include everyone (including unions).

The upside is that when Republicans take back the White House at some point I am sure they will add unions and liberal groups to the list through a similar executive order, so it is not like they will be exempted in perpetuity.

There is nothing wrong with this...


Just another example of writer's outright hatred of anything Obama

Ty Webb;762657 wrote:There is nothing wrong with this..

Just another example of Gibby's outright love of anything Obama

Let's see...

Republican Governors and Statehouses severely restrict collective bargaining rights for public workers under the guise of "balancing budgets". Of course, the extra benefit is to help dismantle the unions' political contribution and voter organizing efforts. The right wingers have no problem with this. The President signs an executive order which requires those who do business with the federal government to disclose their political contributions and it's termed "gangster politics" and "Chicago-style politics". The right wing has a stroke. Writer demands that the "mainstream media" report on this.

It's so sad it's laughable.

Louie: Are you presenting unions and a Presidential executive order as equal? Or even on the same planet?

What's laughable, Louie, is calling it bargaining RIGHTS. A right is something inalienable and can't be taken away.

Bargaining PRIVILEGES were given to public employees by THE ACT OF GOVERNMENT -- and AN ACT OF GOVERNMENT can take it away.

See how that works?

If it were bargaining RIGHTS it would be in every state of the union and wouldn't be subject to being withdrawn. Only about half the states have collective bargaining, and the ones who do are finding out now it's not a level playing field for the taxpayers.

To equate that with what Obama is doing is ridiculous.

Government does business with business...it always has. ANYTHING that skews the level playing field of business one way or another is wrong and corrupt. This order is corrupt in its nature. Its only purpose is to give a POLITICAL advantage to one party by effectively cutting off donations to the opposition.

There's a reason this system went unchanged for so many decades. To try and defend this change is about as partisan as the order itself.

Democrats shouldn't be crying about cooperation after this -- because this order amounts to an act of war between the parties.

Writerbuckeye;762859 wrote:Democrats shouldn't be crying about cooperation after this -- because this order amounts to an act of war between the parties.

November 2012 is approaching.

Writerbuckeye;762095 wrote:This opens the door for a lot of corruption -- .

Really, I thought that was the definition of politics. Same concept as gerrymandering.

Writerbuckeye;762446 wrote:This. A question for you, Pants: why do you think Obama changed something that has been unchanged for decades and when no problems with the system were evident?

Because it makes sense to be able to see what companies are donating to political parties?

stlouiedipalma;762784 wrote:Let's see...

Republican Governors and Statehouses severely restrict collective bargaining rights

Rights are defined in the constitution. Please point this one out.

Well I mean not every right is defined in the constitution. Sort of what the 9th amendment is about.

I Wear Pants;763241 wrote:Well I mean not every right is defined in the constitution. Sort of what the 9th amendment is about.

This is true. Employees have the right to collectively bargain with their employer. The employer also has the right to accept or reject unconditionally collective bargaining. Or under what terms the employer will allow its labor force to collectively bargain with them.