- Obama’s regulatory agenda will cost U.S. economy $143B next year: report
- Patriot Act author on James Clapper: Fire, prosecute him
- Russia P.M. Medvedev: No amnesty for political prisoners
- Michigan GOP Senate hopeful reminds government is the ‘servant’
- Christmas, by Congress: Members mull a 15-cent tax on trees
- U.S. unemployment falls to five-year low of 7 percent; 203K jobs added
- World mourns Nelson Mandela and celebrates his life; burial set for Dec. 15
- Bill O’Reilly reminds: Nelson Mandela ‘was a communist’
- John Boehner says GOP should support gay candidates: ‘I do’
- Grass-Whopper: Pan-fried cricket burgers go over big in New York City
Bid to curb campaign donors challenged
GOP, business groups call Obama’s contractor disclosure plan one-sided
President Obama’s planto require government contractors to disclose campaign contributions is receiving a rocky reception from Republicans and even some advocates of transparency.
GOP lawmakers have joined the nation’s leading business groups in condemning the move as a federal overreach and a backdoor way to hinder Republican fundraising efforts — and punish the corporations that support them.
Many transparency groups say it’s a step in the right direction, but they aren’t satisfied because Mr. Obama’s plan doesn’t go far enough.
“The White House has floated a trial balloon to see what the political response would be,” said John Samples, director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute. He thinks the president is willing to consider changes.
Campaign-finance rules altered course in January 2010, when the Supreme Court opened the door for corporations and unions to contribute “independent spending” to the election process. That might include paying for a television commercial that favors, but is not endorsed by, a candidate.
Later that year, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced the Disclose Act, which would have limited the effect of the court’s ruling by restricting government contractors and corporations with certain levels of foreign management or ownership from “independent spending.” Other companies would be allowed to use “independent spending” to support a campaign, but would be subject to transparency regulations. Congress never passed it.
Now, it is “coming back on the president’s will alone,” Mr. Samples said. In its present form, the draft executive order would require government agencies to collect political-contribution information from contractors but not prevent them from donating.
Republicans and business groups say it isn’t about transparency. They fear the party in charge of the White House at the time will make it more difficult for certain companies to win federal contracts.
“You have to think about politics as a war,” Mr. Samples said. “This campaign-finance regulation in general is really about taking ammunition away from the other side.”
On Tuesday, 25 congressional Republicans, including Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, wrote a letter to the president addressing those concerns.
“Political activity would obviously be threatened if the causes they support are disfavored by the Administration,” they said. “No White House should be able to review your political party affiliation or the causes you support before deciding if you are worthy of a government contract. And no Americans should have to worry about whether their political activities or support will affect their ability to get or keep a federal contract or their job.”
The Business Roundtable, a group of CEOs, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would also like the president rethink his strategy.
It might be difficult for the president to make friends on this issue, Mr. Samples indicated, because some transparency groups will see this as a “sellout.”
“The executive order is weaker than the Disclose Act,” Mr. Samples said. “It’s possible that their coalition could see it as an ineffective response. If everyone’s going to be against it, including their allies, then it’s pointless.”
The Project on Government Oversight, which has not yet taken sides on the executive order, is in favor of more transparency in the campaign process. But the group admits there are “holes” in the president’s plan that “raise some questions.” They would rather see it extended beyond contractors.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Tim Devaney is a national reporter who covers business and international trade for The Washington Times. Previously, he worked for the Detroit News, Grand Rapids Press, Portland Press Herald and Bangor Daily News. Tim can be reached at email@example.com.
- General Motors ending Chevrolet sales in Europe to focus on Opel and Vauxhall
- 'Momentous day' for in-debt Detroit
- Cyber Monday, Gray Thursday reflect sales shift
- Bye, bye American pie? China wants in on the U.S. apple market.
- Deal with Iran can mean lower prices at gas pump
Latest Blog Entries
- Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement
- Activists urge Obama to go rogue, sidestep Congress
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- PRUDEN: British press horrified as London's new mayor dares to proclaim the truth
- U.S. pilot scares off Iranians with 'Top Gun'-worthy stunt: 'You really ought to go home'
- Obama administration issues permits for wind farms to kill more eagles
- Inside China: Nuclear submarines capable of widespread attack on U.S.
- NAPOLITANO: Pope Francis should be saving souls, not pocketbooks
- CARSON: Getting to the top by starting at the bottom
- Obamas call to close Vatican embassy is 'slap in the face' to Roman Catholics
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Inside the sport of hockey from a scout’s perspective
Classical music and the performing arts: news and reviews you can use.
For moms, dads, kids, tech heads, travelers, kitchen mavens and everyone else on your holiday gift list
A politically conservative and morally liberal Hebrew alpha male hunts left-wing viper
White House pets gone wild!