More

Obama Administration Drafts Executive Order On Contractor Donation Transparency

Obama Signing Statement

First Posted: 04/19/11 06:52 PM ET Updated: 06/19/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- After exhausting normal legislative avenues, the Obama administration has prepared a draft executive order that would enact some campaign finance reform provisions.

The administration was unable to secure the changes to donation disclosures it wanted in the last Congress.

Several Democratic sources confirmed a document being circulated by the administration would require government contractors to disclose campaign contributions made by directors, officers, affiliates or subsidiaries to federal candidates, political party committees and “third party entities” involved in electioneering.

The document, which was first reported by the conservative Pajamas Media, represents just a small (and revised) chunk of the DISCLOSE Act, the election transparency law Democrats tried to push through Congress last fall. Under that bill, which fell one vote short of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, contractors would have been entirely prohibited from making political donations to federal candidates or parties.

“It was a ban and they are turning it into disclosure,” said Fred Wertheimer, the Founder and President of Democracy 21, a group that promotes greater donation disclosure. “It is becoming a condition of doing business with the government.”

White House officials did not immediately return a request for comment though a Democratic Hill aide confirmed that an executive order along these lines had been drafted.

Another plugged in Democratic aide said administration officials had been exploring a wide range of executive actions to pursue in light of lawmakers’ failure to push legislation. The toughest component of the talks, the aide said, was figuring out what would withstand legal challenges.

“I have had discussion with administration lawyers who will have to defend any administration action and or statute,” the aide said. “They want to be careful about being on a sound legal footing.”

How far along the order is remains a mystery, as does the willingness of the administration to take on the donations fight. Conservative commentators pounced on news of the draft order as evidence that the White House was doing an end-run around Congress to aide the Democratic Party’s political ambitions.

“That’s absurd,” said Wertheimer, who passed along a copy of the draft to The Huffington Post. “This is an effort to get disclosure that 92 percent of American people believe should be taking place.”

Under the drafted executive order, contractor donations would be reported in a centralized database. Disclosure would be required “whenever the aggregate amount of such contributions and expenditures made by the bidding entity, its officers and directors, and its affiliates and subsidiaries exceeds $5,000 to a given recipient during a given year.” Determinations over who, exactly, would have to disclose would be made by the FAR Council, which includes the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of National Aeronautics and Space and the Administrator of General Services.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- After exhausting normal legislative avenues, the Obama administration has prepared a draft executive order that would enact some campaign finance reform provisions. The administration...
WASHINGTON -- After exhausting normal legislative avenues, the Obama administration has prepared a draft executive order that would enact some campaign finance reform provisions. The administration...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 972
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (14 total)
  1 of 1  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
Bubba Gump 06:08 AM on 04/20/2011
"... administration officials had been exploring a wide range of executive actions to pursue in light of lawmakers’ failure to push legislation. The toughest component of the talks, the aide said, was figuring out what would withstand legal challenges."

While I'm glad to hear that the President is finally trying to do something about transparency, I think this is a wasted  Read More...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Svrkevi
07:00 PM on 05/17/2011
awesome, this is needed to keep both sides inline.
photo
splashy
Really?!?!!!
04:31 PM on 05/17/2011
WE have to disclose who we donate to, why shouldn't they have to do the same? They should have to disclose who is behind the ads too, so we can be informed voters.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Svrkevi
07:02 PM on 05/17/2011
But thats not fair...oh wait it is, that's why those in Washington will openly and secretly oppose it...
photo
splashy
Really?!?!!!
09:42 PM on 05/17/2011
By "those" you mean Republicans, obviously. The Democrats tried to pass legislation on this, but the Republicans blocked it. They must have something to hid, ya think?
12:30 AM on 05/18/2011
Actually, the DISCLOSE Act failed on cloture on a party-line vote, 59-39. All Democrats supported it, and all Republicans who voted opposed it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cadawa
08:35 PM on 04/21/2011
Sure he also had an executive order against lobbyists. That evaporated like an ice cube on a frying pan.
Contractors get immunity from fraud just like bankers; just like Bush.
05:48 PM on 04/20/2011
Fred Wertheimer and others have done yeoman's work in pressing for more transparency and integrity in government. But on this one, he's wrong. Political donations are already posted and disclosed to publicly available websites. Requiring them to be submitted to government contracting officers during a source selection only makes them more, not less, visible in the process. And anyone who knows anything about federal contracting knows that with precious few exceptions, elected officials actually have little or no influence over or involvement in source selections. The proposal also requires disclosure of contributions to so-called 527s...but why only contractors? Why not everyone who has significant interest in the outcome of government decisions and policy? Why not unions, federal grantees, other business organizations? It's a pretty weak excuse that this is necessary because Congress wouldn't pass the broader law; singling out one community just because you can helps nothing. If a small business executive, or any business executive, is an active supporter of MoveOn or Citizens United or the Tea Party, why should any of that matter in determining whether the company is the best possible provider of a good or service? That determination should be made on merit, not politics. The conspiracy theorists on both sides can launch their grenades. But it would help if a little common sense prevailed.
06:16 PM on 04/20/2011
Don't forget about bundling- both Clinton and Obama reaped millions from bundled cash, with little traceablity
photo
splashy
Really?!?!!!
04:33 PM on 05/17/2011
I'm with you, but the federal government is giving our tax dollars to contractors, so they are using OUR money to influence elections. I think we should be able to know where it is going if they want to do business with us through the federal government.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Botany5000
04:52 PM on 04/20/2011
Of course, this administration will publish the transparency orders in secret.
photo
Jerry Aripez
Retired Union Carpenter
07:28 PM on 04/20/2011
Secretcy??? It is already out in the open...YOu would stinkk at being CIA...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Svrkevi
07:03 PM on 05/17/2011
dude, shhh lol
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SPQR1775
04:51 PM on 04/20/2011
EXECUTIVE ORDER BANNING THE GOP would be GREAT!
04:07 PM on 04/21/2011
Banning the opposition. How totalitarian of you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
citygirl1832
Life is supposed to be good
02:33 PM on 04/24/2011
Isn't that what Republican legislatures are trying to do around the country? Getting rid of union funding, passing laws that make it more difficult for first time voters to register to vote (Kansas), not accepting student id's as valid for voting. The Republican legislatures are doing all they can to suppress the vote...banning the opposition.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SPQR1775
04:48 PM on 04/20/2011
LOL, if President OBAMA is considered IMPERIAL, what would we called W. Bush???
photo
oliviaah
we need more cowbell
09:54 PM on 04/20/2011
Emporial?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:29 PM on 04/20/2011
Never since Nixon have we had such an imperial president.
photo
Jerry Aripez
Retired Union Carpenter
07:38 PM on 04/20/2011
Tell that to Chenny/Bush with all the Ex orders...secret energy meetings, still not disclosed and who attended...

Kettle calling Pot....
photo
sindurrella
now where did I put my bootstraps?
03:22 PM on 04/20/2011
I know who Blackwater (Xe) is and what they do. I'd just like to know which GOPers they are backing. that's an ick factor that can't be scrubbed off, as far as I"m concerned!
photo
JBDenver
1% - Not just for milk anymore
01:37 PM on 04/20/2011
The entire system should be transparent - Corporate Money, Special Interest Money, Union Money all of it.

Regarding Special Interest Money - The major funders of each group should also be identified, the ones with the go-nogo decision making authority on how money is spent whether it is a Koch, a Soros, a Pickens...
photo
splashy
Really?!?!!!
04:34 PM on 05/17/2011
Actually, I'm inclined to agree with you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Svrkevi
07:06 PM on 05/17/2011
True, see this is the only comment needed...simple and clear.
01:28 PM on 04/20/2011
Wouldn't it be easier for President Obama to issue an executive order naming himself Emperor? And then, of course, take off his clothes, and demand to be complimented on his Armani suit.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
VeritasVincit2
on the hunt for Biggie and Tupac
02:02 PM on 04/20/2011
apparently it is easier to spout off with right wing talking points even when something helps the right wing who blocks anything to do with transparency. Every president has done this. Better to ridicule when you don't have any education right?
02:48 PM on 04/20/2011
Is it me that you think has no education, or you? I know that sentences start with capital letters. I know that in your first sentence the "with" is superfluous and that there should be a comma after wing. I also know that the first sentence is poorly constructed and the last one isn't a sentence at all.

So tell me, oracle, from which pre school did you obtain your education?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Botany5000
04:54 PM on 04/20/2011
Let's see you mentioned "talking points" and "everyone else has done it."
Typical Progressive post, thoughtless.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kgilgenberg
11:09 PM on 05/10/2011
That would be lovely
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LibertarianJon
Ron Paul 2012!!!
01:05 PM on 04/20/2011
So let's see, want to get something done in Washington, congress won't pass it, Supreme Court can't draft legislation, so let's create an executive order, and bypass the system of Checks and Balances. That's not following the constitution, this borders upon dictatorship... is everyone else blind to this???
02:20 PM on 04/20/2011
I'm sorry... I need help understanding something. Does 'Libertarian' mean: Support a corrupt system that is holding us back from competing in the world markets? As a libertarian you shouldn't be defending 'Checks and Balances'... no? Is not Obama limiting gov't by doing this?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LibertarianJon
Ron Paul 2012!!!
02:45 PM on 04/20/2011
Please... Obama has inflated the size of government WELL beyond anyone before him. Libertarians support upkeep of the Constitution, staying true to what this country was built on. Not letting the government get too big for it's britches so to speak.
06:22 PM on 04/20/2011
Not if it is for The Greater Good. You have to read Saul Alinsky to understand. It's their rule book.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steve David
12:08 PM on 04/20/2011
Another draft on transparency? I'm sorry, but that's just too funny. And wasn't he wanting to be the first politician ever to raise a billion for campaigning?
Butquestioning
Searching for truth
12:35 PM on 04/20/2011
Yes, but he apparently is not concerned about anyone knowing who is contributors are...Seems that it is the Republicans that want to keep their donors a secret.

While this will not provide the names of companies that are not contractors, it will help identify government contractors that donate to candidates and that is a good thing to disclose.
03:49 PM on 04/20/2011
Noticed that too did ya. Seems he is not afraid of revealing his stuff. Sorta like the birth certificate on the White house web page. People are too stupid too realize the president is Legit.
06:43 PM on 04/20/2011
Yet another factually challenged statement that it is hoped, if repeated often enough, that someone will believe. Clinton and Obama were masters at taking in "bundled" cash with little traceability. Anyone who believes that democrats have any less to hide in the area of fund-raising is either highly partisan or oblivious to facts. You may notice the article stated that the bill was not passed by the last congress, which had a democrat supermajority.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:29 AM on 04/20/2011
Several Democratic sources confirmed a document being circulated by the administration would require government contractors to disclose campaign contributions made by directors, officers, affiliates or subsidiaries to federal candidates, political party committees and “third party entities” involved in electioneering.
-------------

It applies only to government contractors.
That's a step in the right direction, but a very small step.
On the other hand, that's probably all the President can do by Executive Order.
photo
oliviaah
we need more cowbell
10:04 PM on 04/20/2011
If that includes military contractors, methinks that is a huge step in the right direction.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:39 PM on 04/20/2011
I am sure it would include military contractors, Olivia, but perhaps not all oil companies, coal mining companies, banks, financial institutions, and so on, which are more relevant to domestic policies. Although, there might be some who sell to the government and, therefore would be in the government contractor category.
But, at least it will restrict some corruption.
sandiegoconservative
Surprisingly refreshing and undeniably delightful
11:09 AM on 04/20/2011
And what is the part of the story no one on this site seems to really know about or even mention?

Unions are not included in this executive order. Which means anyone that might want to donate to a candidate other than Obama is the enemy of Obama.

And while we are on the topic, why is no one commenting on the audit recently completed for Obamas 2008 campaign with multiple discrepancies noted?

You libs are truly uninformed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:14 AM on 04/20/2011
Recitations without source or quotes or links are not of much account.
06:44 PM on 04/20/2011
Lots of good info in "Culture of Corruption" regarding both Clinton and Obama campaign. Complete with footnotes if you want to check out the facts.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
BeasleysMom
Liberal Elitist
11:18 AM on 04/20/2011
Uninformed. That is rich coming from you. I do have to admit that sandie, the low IQ con, does a terrific job repeating the conmedia talking points. L i es are all the right has. And, repeating them totally without thought, of course.
sandiegoconservative
Surprisingly refreshing and undeniably delightful
12:48 PM on 04/20/2011
Ok, then tell me where I am wrong. Go ahead, I can't wait to be enlightened.

http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2011/04/Draft-EO-Govt-Contr-Disclosure.pdf

Here is the link to the proposed draft. Note the WH has not refuted this, and two sources now say the draft is genuine. Please also note this was ALREADY addressed when the Disclose Act failed the last time around. The wording has not changed regarding union contracts.

Federal employee unions that negotiate contracts for their members worth many times the value of some government contracts are not affected by this order. Neither are the recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal grants.

So again, where am I incorrect? I note your response discusses "talking points", yet at the same time, it merely calls out "lies" without any proof. A talking point of the left.
photo
IsotelusMaximus
Resist we much.
12:51 PM on 04/20/2011
May be you should the links? Why would you make yourself look silly by calling someone else names? I feel sorry for Beasley, he will never know what it means to be a respectable person.

"Federal employee unions that negotiate contracts for their members worth many times the value of some government contracts are not affected by this order. Neither are the recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal grants."