Government contracts

[Cancel 2016.2]

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

Thoughts on this?

Under the order, all companies (and their officers) would be required to list their political donations as a condition to bidding for government contracts.

Do we really want this to be a part of government contract decisions?

Ever audacious, the White House is spinning this as "reform," claiming taxpayers deserve to know how federal dollars being paid to contractors are being spent in campaigns. This might hold (a drop of) water if the executive order also required all the (liberal) entities that get billions in taxpayer dollars via federal grants and funding—unions, environmental groups, Planned Parenthood—to disclose also. It doesn't.

If so, then why not require the same of ALL parties that get government funding?

 

[Bonestorm]

If the Republicans in Congress weren't shitheads then we'd get full disclosure on all political donations of any kind regardless of whether the person or entity contracts with the government or gets funding from the government, which is what ought to happen.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

If the Republicans in Congress weren't shitheads then we'd get full disclosure on all political donations of any kind regardless of whether the person or entity contracts with the government or gets funding from the government, which is what ought to happen.

LMAO.... tell me genius... are you capable of addressing THIS policy?

Also... please show me the Dems efforts to lead by example.... where have they pushed THEIR donors to disclose this information.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Bottom line, this has NO business being a requirement for government contract bidding. The fact that the Dems couldn't get this passed in a DEM controlled Senate should tell you just how pathetic this idea is. But I know... as king of Obama apologists, you have no choice but to defend and deflect.

 

[Bonestorm]

Bottom line, this has NO business being a requirement for government contract bidding. The fact that the Dems couldn't get this passed in a DEM controlled Senate should tell you just how pathetic this idea is. But I know... as king of Obama apologists, you have no choice but to defend and deflect.

The Republicans elected to block the legislation and they live with the consequences of that, including Obama's ability to take unilateral actions as he sees fit. In short, fuck 'em.

 

[NOVA]

Donations by private citizens to political campaigns are nobody business.....that said, the only way I would agree to it is if the disclosure is part of a REQUIRED complete donation disclosure of EVERY politician....

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO.... tell me genius... are you capable of addressing THIS policy?

Also... please show me the Dems efforts to lead by example.... where have they pushed THEIR donors to disclose this information.

I have no problem with it whatsoever. Maybe the Republicans will get their fucking act together and pass legislation to address the issue.

 

[NOVA]

The Republicans elected to block the legislation and they live with the consequences of that, including Obama's ability to take unilateral actions as he sees fit. In short, fuck 'em.

I can live with it, as long as Obama keeps following in the footsteps of G. Bush as he has been....just remember, what goes around, comes around.....I look forward to your pathetic whining in January 2013

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I have no problem with it whatsoever. Maybe the Republicans will get their fucking act together and pass legislation to address the issue.

This is such a bad idea, its no wonder it is a Dem plan. There is a reason they are not required to do so. It helps alleviate the 'pay to play' system that leads to even more corruption in DC. I am not shocked that a party hack like you would support such a system.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The Republicans elected to block the legislation and they live with the consequences of that, including Obama's ability to take unilateral actions as he sees fit. In short, fuck 'em.

Great attitude. Let Obama do whatever he wants.... who needs a legislature???

 

[Damocles]

If the Republicans in Congress weren't shitheads then we'd get full disclosure on all political donations of any kind regardless of whether the person or entity contracts with the government or gets funding from the government, which is what ought to happen.

Right, because the Democrats sure did that when they had supermajorities in both houses and the White House. Yup. It's all republicans fault, and only republicans.

Look. Yes, the republicans should do that, but giving a pass to the other party who so recently held historical power in both houses is flat ridiculous.

 

[Bonestorm]

This is such a bad idea, its no wonder it is a Dem plan. There is a reason they are not required to do so. It helps alleviate the 'pay to play' system that leads to even more corruption in DC. I am not shocked that a party hack like you would support such a system.

That's the stupidest fuckign argument ever. Making information as to political donations available to the public is better than the public not knowing about political donations? Allowing bidders to hide their political donations doesn't alleviate pay-to-play, it allows it to go undetected. The politicians already know who is buttering their bread, they don't need a goddamned disclosure report to tell them.

 

[Bonestorm]

Right, because the Democrats sure did that when they had supermajorities in both houses and the White House. Yup. It's all republicans fault, and only republicans.

Look. Yes, the republicans should do that, but giving a pass to the other party who so recently held historical power in both houses is flat ridiculous.

Every single Democrat in the Senate voted to end the filibuster on the Disclose Act. Every single Republican voted to filibuster it. Under the circumstances, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to blame the Republicans for its failure. 59 votes in the Senate is not enough to defeat a filibuster.

 

[Bonestorm]

Great attitude. Let Obama do whatever he wants.... who needs a legislature???

Let Obama do what is within his power as the executive and if Congress has a problem with it or wants something different, let it pass a law. Congress had the opportunity to more meaningfully address this issue and it didn't. It's failure to act is what led to this policy being adopted.

And if Obama did whatever the hell he wanted the requirement would not be limited to those that contract with the government, I can assure you of that.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I wonder what the people who insist that donations be shrouded in secrecy are hiding?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's the stupidest fuckign argument ever. Making information as to political donations available to the public is better than the public not knowing about political donations? Allowing bidders to hide their political donations doesn't alleviate pay-to-play, it allows it to go undetected. The politicians already know who is buttering their bread, they don't need a goddamned disclosure report to tell them.

Tell me genius.... if Obama and the Dems really felt this way.... then WHY is this ONLY addressing corporations? WHY does it not include ALL organizations?

As for disclosure.... no, it is your argument that is made in complete ignorance. Unless you believe government contracts are awarded by Senators and Congressmen. The contract decision should be made based on the quality, cost and time to completion. Those agencies deciding who to award the contracts to should not be looking at who political contributions went to as part of the decision making process.

 

[Damocles]

Every single Democrat in the Senate voted to end the filibuster on the Disclose Act. Every single Republican voted to filibuster it. Under the circumstances, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to blame the Republicans for its failure. 59 votes in the Senate is not enough to defeat a filibuster.

You said that ALL of the donations should be open. I agree. They should.

I see you are going to actually attempt to use the DISCLOSE act to try to paint republicans as against reform.

That the democrats would be satisfied with it is clear, because it exempted almost every one of the large donations for the Ds and targeted largely republican contributors. I can see why they would want to kill that.

The DISCLOSE act did not even come close to forcing disclosure of all contributions. It simply doesn't do what you say should be done.

We should also get rid of 527s, that stupid bill of McCain/Kennedy simply ensured that people could do whatever they wanted without any chance at disclosure. It's too easy to create corporations to "donate" to the 527s and to own it that do not lead back directly to the originators.

You'll attempt to say that they should have supported it, but nobody supports politically hamstringing themselves while allowing the other party to be rather less effected.

 

[Bonestorm]

You said that ALL of the donations should be open. I agree. They should.

I see you are going to actually attempt to use the DISCLOSE act to try to paint republicans as against reform.

That the democrats would be satisfied with it is clear, because it exempted almost every one of the large donations for the Ds and targeted largely republican contributors. I can see why they would want to kill that.

The DISCLOSE act did not even come close to forcing disclosure of all contributions. It simply doesn't do what you say should be done.

We should also get rid of 527s, that stupid bill of McCain/Kennedy simply ensured that people could do whatever they wanted without any chance at disclosure. It's too easy to create corporations to "donate" to the 527s and to own it that do not lead back directly to the originators.

You'll attempt to say that they should have supported it, but nobody supports politically hamstringing themselves while allowing the other party to be rather less effected.

I suppose we can agree to disagree as to whether Republicans are in support of reform. Maybe the House Republicans will pass a bill that addresses the problem but I very seriously doubt that they will.

On 527s, they have to disclose their contributors now. There are various other types of groups that do not.

 

[Damocles]

I suppose we can agree to disagree as to whether Republicans are in support of reform. Maybe the House Republicans will pass a bill that addresses the problem but I very seriously doubt that they will.

On 527s, they have to disclose their contributors now. There are various other types of groups that do not.

I actually hope that they start acting soon. The best campaign is run through action. They have to disclose them, but again it is simply very easy to create corporations specifically for the purpose of donating to a 527. This form of disclosure simply doesn't work. I simply think that we should have every contribution out there. I believe we agree on that, however that DISCLOSE act simply didn't do that. If it did and the republicans didn't support it I would have been on them like stink on sewage.

 

[NOVA]

That's the stupidest fuckign argument ever. Making information as to political donations available to the public is better than the public not knowing about political donations? Allowing bidders to hide their political donations doesn't alleviate pay-to-play, it allows it to go undetected. The politicians already know who is buttering their bread, they don't need a goddamned disclosure report to tell them.

Every single Democrat in the Senate voted to end the filibuster on the Disclose Act. Every single Republican voted to filibuster it. Under the circumstances, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to blame the Republicans for its failure. 59 votes in the Senate is not enough to defeat a filibuster.

Being the pinhead you are, you always conveniently omit a pertinent provision of the issue...

Under the order, all companies (and their officers) would be required to list their political donations as a condition to bidding for government contracts.

This condition alone is enough to NOT SUPPORT this legislation....thank God for Republicans....