The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Executive order to allow WH to demand political records pre-contract letting

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,862

    Default Executive order to allow WH to demand political records pre-contract letting

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ZaDE_blog.html

    http://tinyurl.com/3av6k4x

    McConnell slams executive order to allow White House to demand political records before awarding contracts

    By Felicia Sonmez
    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday strongly criticized a proposed executive order that would require companies seeking federal contracts to disclose political contributions that would otherwise have been secret under current law, calling the move an “outrageous and anti-Democratic abuse of executive branch authority.”

    “Just last year, the Senate rejected a cynical effort to muzzle critics of this administration and its allies in Congress,” McConnell said in a reference to the DISCLOSE Act, which fell short in the Senate last July. “Now, under the guise of ‘transparency,’ the Obama administration reportedly wants to know the political leanings of any company or small business, including those of their officers and directors, before the government decides if they’ll award them federal contracts.”

    -more-

  2. #2
    Senior Member TxHillHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Bee Cave, Texas
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Johnson View Post
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ZaDE_blog.html

    http://tinyurl.com/3av6k4x

    McConnell slams executive order to allow White House to demand political records before awarding contracts

    By Felicia Sonmez
    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday strongly criticized a proposed executive order that would require companies seeking federal contracts to disclose political contributions that would otherwise have been secret under current law, calling the move an “outrageous and anti-Democratic abuse of executive branch authority.”

    “Just last year, the Senate rejected a cynical effort to muzzle critics of this administration and its allies in Congress,” McConnell said in a reference to the DISCLOSE Act, which fell short in the Senate last July. “Now, under the guise of ‘transparency,’ the Obama administration reportedly wants to know the political leanings of any company or small business, including those of their officers and directors, before the government decides if they’ll award them federal contracts.”

    -more-
    I'll be interested to see the actual draft.....the spokesperson indicated that Obama wants taxpayers to know how businesses spend on political contributions. If that's the case, then there is no need to have this info disclosed prior to the award of the contract....it can be done after it's been awarded and achieve that end. My suspicion is there will be more to it than that!

  3. #3
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Ultimately, disclosure is the only way to end pay to play contracting. In fact, disclosure is almost always more damaging to the incumbent administration than to others since those in power are almost always the primary recipients of contributions designed to cement business deals.

    But then, I also believe that the notion of corporations enjoying the same rights of citizens (while being shielded from many of the responsibilities) is an outrageous distortion of our Constitution and the beliefs of our forefathers.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    How does it go?

    This is the time of the year that corporations send out their annual report. 2 things stand out.

    1) About 1/2 those reports have someone asking the same question of stockholders many of whom are public pension funds. At best this proposal may garner a vote %age in the very low teens . This is a case of real people voting their hard earned rewards.

    2) Rarely does any board not have at the least, a couple of former government big shots or politicos on their board @ 150 to 300K/year.

    Makes for a nice retirement along with their publicly funded one. & they do about as much .
    __________________________

    Marvin S

    Everyone's friend is No One's friend

    Someday your life will flash before your eyes. It's your responsibility to make sure it's worth watching!

  5. #5
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,748

    Default

    Of course the ederal unions don;t have to disclose anything nor do those who get federal kickbacks err I mean grants.
    Also BUMFACE wants not just the corp donations but also the PERSONAL donations of directors and officers.
    Supreme court said no, congress said no but he makes his own rules as "THe anointed one"
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •