iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Steny Hoyer Clarifies Opposition To Obama's Executive Order On Donor Disclosure

Hoyer

First Posted: 05/10/11 09:13 PM ET Updated: 07/10/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer’s office offered a quick clarification on Tuesday night to earlier comments the congressman made opposing an executive order to require government contractors to disclose their campaign contributions.

An aide to the Maryland Democrat told The Huffington Post that Hoyer still opposed the basic idea, which would apply not just to directors of those contractors but to their officers, affiliates and subsidiaries, as well. He did not, however, believe that the White House would use the threat of disclosure as a means of compelling contractors to withhold donations to Republican officials, campaign committees or like-minded causes.

"Mr. Hoyer is not saying he thinks the Administration’s goal in putting forward this proposal is to use disclosure to award contracts, or that the Administration would do that," spokeswoman Katie Grant wrote in an email.

Grant's statement walked back some of the concerns Hoyer had expressed earlier Tuesday, when he told reporters that he had “some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political contributions in the context of awarding contracts.”

But it may have come too late. Republicans were quick to jump on Hoyer’s initial remarks, echoing the argument that it would be used as a cudgel by the Obama White House.

“I'm glad to see that somebody on the other side is standing up to this blatant attempt to intimidate people into either not participating or, to the contrary, basically repealing the Hatch Act, putting politics back into the procurement process,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a longtime opponent of campaign finance reform. “It's truly an outrageous action that the White House still has an opportunity to not go forward with.”

Hoyer’s district, a Washington, D.C. suburb, houses a number of federal contractors, so his opposition to disclosure raised some eyebrows among good-government groups. So did the fact that the congressman last year supported the Disclose Act, which would have prohibited government contractors from spending on elections.

In the end, neither Hoyer's nor the Republican Party’s opposition to the executive order has much practical impact on whether or not the White House will issue it, though a timeframe for such a move remains uncertain. But having bipartisan leadership in opposition certainly doesn’t help the administration make the case that there is broad support for greater disclosure.

UPDATE: Grant emailed the Huffington Post a follow-up statement re-affirming her boss's support for the DISCLOSE Act even in light of his opposition to the possible executive order.

Mr. Hoyer strongly supports the DISCLOSE Act and believes that reforming disclosure requirements needs to be done in a comprehensive way. Senate Republicans should not have blocked the DISCLOSE Act last year, and they should follow their own rhetorical support for transparency in elections and work with us to pass it this year.
FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer’s office offered a quick clarification on Tuesday night to earlier comments the congressman made opposing an executive order to require government contr...
WASHINGTON -- House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer’s office offered a quick clarification on Tuesday night to earlier comments the congressman made opposing an executive order to require government contr...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 608
  • 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 »  (12 total)
08:37 PM on 06/09/2011
Reading/talking politics upsets my spirit" My spirit really becomes Angry". Why Do the United States have Republic/Democrat anything. Can't We as the People put them ALL out of Office,Get rid of both parties??? They Do Not Speak for the American People...They All have their on Agenda!! Why? We Do not have Just One elected official to deal with " The President" These supposed Representatives,Senators,Governors ALL have alterior motives"thats normal in our society" Why?? Can't We Just Have One Elected Official To Deal with;Rewrite the Whole constitution becvause everything in it does not apply to many and not instituted throughout these United States of America??? My GoD!! When will these people who we elected stop Playing with Lives?? Still No Jobs!!! PRIVATE SECTOR!! When??? 2012 Why Not NOW!!!$#%^$#$ . Free Up some actual opportunity the real ideas can become productive "we all did not come from Money" We "ALL"want To make Some!! It really take only One to govern anything...that is with a cooperative collective consensus and knowing what is Actually need for the People!!By Listening to them(THE PEOPLE) as a Whole!!!(It's alot of people in America Legally and Illegally;We ALL migrated from somewhere.) DO WE REALLY NEED A REPUBLIC/DEMOCRAT PARTY??? Are they truly representing "THE PEOPLE"
12:02 PM on 05/12/2011
Obama is looking more and more like a thug. Playing politics with taxpayer money so blatantly.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
12:11 AM on 05/13/2011
Obama promised more transparency in government.  If companies want cost-plus contracts with our government, then the people are entitled to know about the contractors contributions to politicians.  I don't see how this kind of transparency would impair government contracting; if anything, it would probably make it more cometitive.  Isn't that what our economy is supposed to be about?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DanBeach
non-profiteer
03:00 PM on 05/11/2011
...Bush signed two-hundred and ninety some Executive Orders...give them "H"-ll Mr. President
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gray Mouser
Former Republican
01:56 PM on 05/11/2011
disclosure is ALWAYS preferrable in politics and campaigns.

The Dems may not use it against the contractors in awarding contracts, but you can rest assured if the situation were reversed to the GOP, they certainly would. Thus, the contractors concerns. Their experience is based on GOP actions they KNOW to exist.
01:49 PM on 05/11/2011
Cronyism – is partiality to long standing friends, by appointing them to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications.
Crony capitalism – is the collusion among market players who create a unified front to the government in requesting subsidies and aid.
Newcomers to a market will find it difficult to find loans or sell their products.
Intentionally ambiguous laws and regulations are common in such systems, in practice, they are erratically enforced.
More influential players gain control of regulating agency and use it against competitors.
Lobbyist connections become more important than competition.
Develops the rule by the wealthy, Plutocracy.
Activity develops a concentration of economic and political power in a small interlocking group.
Lobbyist’s money purchases favorable legislation favoring a few select groups at the expense of the greater society.
Practice creates political entrepreneurs.
Money in politics creates corporate welfare, were as, government bestows money grant, tax breaks, and other special treatment for selected corporations.
These are a few of the destructive activities created by the use of money in our politics and it becomes more destructive without transparency. Money’s effect on society in a capitalistic economic system has always been with us and we must continue to regulate greed to avoid the destruction of America for ALL its citizens.
01:30 PM on 05/11/2011
Same oops and oh no be for it till the party color changes then they will be against it!
01:20 PM on 05/11/2011
" He did not, however, believe that the White House would use the threat of disclosure as a means of compelling contractors to withhold donations to Republican officials, campaign committees or like-minded causes."

Do democrats really think we're that s.tupid? That's EXACTLY what this order is about.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gray Mouser
Former Republican
01:59 PM on 05/11/2011
Probably. And good on them for taking it to the GOP. The GOP are doing similar in making it harder to register to vote and to vote, de-certifying unions, demeaning and causing the disbanding of ACORN, et al.

It's politics and the Dems need to play hard ball as that is what the GOP are playing.
02:05 PM on 05/11/2011
So long as we're clear on what the point of the order is.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
too young but old enough
I already know how this is going to turn out...
04:59 PM on 05/11/2011
You do realize that Democrats would have to disclose their donors too, right? Wouldn't the Republican officials, campaign committees and like-minded donors be paying attention to the money going in the other direction as well? I get what you're trying to say, but if it goes both ways, wouldn't the point be moot? Most major donors give plenty of money to both sides anyway.

The only real solution is to take out corporate donations and lobbying groups altogether, but that won't happen as long as it's left up to the same politicians that benefit from those very donations (from both sides of the bipartisan divide).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:03 PM on 05/11/2011
Corporations that pay nothing in taxes should be banned from using corporate funds to give to politicians.

Politicians are government employees. Corporations with 'extra' spare cash laying around should put it into the US Treasury rather than people that are already being paid by the Treasury. -Of course the US Treasury is broke. I wonder why?
01:33 PM on 05/11/2011
I am totaly with you and non profits that pay no taxes also.
12:51 PM on 05/11/2011
I commented on a similar story like this, but the circumstances were a bit different. My argument then was that you shouldn't oppose the order because disclosure is a big plus, but you should remain watchful if you think Obama would use it in such a corrupt manner. With Hoyer saying he doesn't hold such a suspicion, he should have no reason at all to oppose the order.

And just as I said for the republicans, we now know who bankrolls Hoyer's campaign and gives you marching orders, and it isn't the people.
photo
didyouseethat
UI's should get a clue
12:33 PM on 05/11/2011
The information obtained by this executive order would in no way influence the ones who determine who gets the contract, would it? Had Bush issued it, the libs would have a hissy fit.
01:37 PM on 05/11/2011
Dont worry when a independant or republican is president the democrats will want to repeal it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gray Mouser
Former Republican
02:01 PM on 05/11/2011
Tit for tat. Go after union contributions and eliminate eligible voters (from the GOP side) requires Dems to go after the GOP contributors over which they have the power to go after.

I am all for it.

Besides, disclosure is always preferrable in politics and campaigns, regardless of the side you are for or against.
11:52 AM on 05/11/2011
No money, no corruption. Imagine if politicians actually did what was in the best interests of their constituents rather than their donors.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
CDRUSNret
01:11 PM on 05/11/2011
Politicians' priority list: Dems & Rs

1. Stay in office
-shakedown big donor for $$
2. Party over country
-shakedown big donor $$ for party contributions
3. Services and legislation favoring big donors
---
---
---
---
4. Citizen constituents
11:47 AM on 05/11/2011
Stenny Hoyer is a classic example of what's wrong with the Democratic Party.
12:06 PM on 05/11/2011
Not just the Dems, but ALL of Congress !!!!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
CDRUSNret
01:12 PM on 05/11/2011
True that.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gray Mouser
Former Republican
02:03 PM on 05/11/2011
I will take him over ANYONE in the GOP/TP. Full stop.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:45 AM on 05/11/2011
We have a problem in this country and it is money in politics. It should be so simple to see that large political contributions can do nothing but influence legislators to vote a certain way or to introduce and support legislation favorable to those who financially support them, regardless of the consequences for the nation, but it's not that simple.
There is also a very large minority of the electorate that equates money with wisdom and sees nothing wrong with buying influence. Unless and until this group begins to take responsibility for educating themselves on the issues facing our great Nation, we can only expect to make progress toward the American social contract in fits and starts.
WE are the people. WE have the power. WE have the responsibility to make this a better country for ALL of us. Abdication of this responsibility to the rich hurts us all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
formerroadie
I am a liberal and proud of it!
11:21 AM on 05/11/2011
All donations should have a public, neon sign attached to them saying exactly who contributed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gray Mouser
Former Republican
02:04 PM on 05/11/2011
Exactly. Full disclosure. What would anyone possible have to hide if they were above board and well-intentioned?

I am fine disclosing who I contribute to. They should be as well.
11:19 AM on 05/11/2011
On Huff 'n' Puff they call a Dem backtracking, "clarifying."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gray Mouser
Former Republican
02:05 PM on 05/11/2011
As all other media call it when the GOP/TP do similar - something they are doing almost hourly lately