« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Is Obama Planning to Impose DISCLOSE Despite FEC, Congress & the Supreme Court?

Having launched his $1 billion election campaign a mere two weeks ago, Barack Obama appears to be moving quickly to try to further tilt the political landscape to favor his union cronies through an Executive Order that implements certain portions of the failed DISCLOSE Act.

As first reported by Pajamas Media, the White House is circulating  a draft Executive Order (in full below) to agencies for comment. As drafted, the Executive Order would only affect government contractors—not unions—and would require the contractor, as well as its directors or officers, to disclose any contribution or expenditures.

(a) All contributions or expenditures to or on behalf of federal candidates, parties or party committees made by the bidding entity, its directors or officers, or any affiliates or subsidiaries within its control.

(b) Any contributions made to third party entities with the intention or reasonable expectation that parties would use those contributions to make independent expenditures or electioneering communications.

Clearly, the administration’s effort is aimed only at employers and, in the case of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, whatever associations they may belong to—while letting union bosses like Richard Trumka and the rest of his union co-horts spend hundreds of millions on further contaminating the electoral process.

As Pajamas Media correctly points out:

The problem is that this will require companies to delve into the personal political activities of their officers and directors — and require them to report political contributions those employees have made, not out of corporate funds (which is illegal), but out of their personal funds.

In addition, as drafted, the Executive Order is to go into effect as soon as it is signed but is retroactive in requiring federal contractors to disclose all political contributions and expenditures within two years prior to the submission of their offer.

According to a Huffington Post follow-up:

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.

So, by using regulatory fiat to do what cannot be done through America’s elected representatives, Obama plans on using his pen to order to Americans report their political activities?

Draft DISCLOSE Executive Order

_________________

“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776

X-posted.

Follow laborunionrpt on Twitter

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • avgjo

    The man is a pig.

    • ohiohistorian

      No, he’s not a pig. Muslims HATE pigs.

      What he is is a total partisan. He will play any political advantage for his side, no matter how sleazy. His push on Federal contractors is about the only window where he has a legitimate right as President. He is NOT Obama the dictator (yet), just Obama the President.

      Wonder if ACORN, NPR, and Planned Parenthood, as a Federal “contractors” in the last two years, will also be forced to disclose? I bet not.

  • post4u

    Can this potential executive order be viewed in the context of the “secret ballot?” If someone donates to a particular candidate or party, wouldn’t that person be voting for that candidate or party? (“too big to fail” businesses play both sides against the middle, but for most people, the above would be true)

    You know, Bob Bauer, White House Counsel, is not infallible. He has failed before. Just search his name.

    If this type of rape of the Republic of the United States of America continues, it’s going to be time to put into action the impeachment card.

    • http://www.campaignfreedom.org seandparnell

      Yes, I certainly think it can be viewed in the context of the secret ballot. But the courts have generally endorsed disclosure of contributions to candidates and parties, as well as contributions made specifically to influence elections. In Citizens United, Justice Thomas was the only one to hold out for the common sense notion that the government shouldn’t be compelling disclosure of citizens private political beliefs and activities.

      Fortunately this order goes beyond what the courts have allowed in the past, and gets into funds given to groups that aren’t primarily political (like the US Chamber) and funds that aren’t intended specifically for political use. There was a case back in ’58 where the state of Alabama wanted the names of the donors and members of the NAACP, it’s not to difficult to figure out what they were up to. Fortunately the Supreme Court struck that down.

      Whether this will stand up to constitutional scrutiny, I have my doubts. Bob Bauer isn’t infallible, but he is awfully smart. Fortunately our side has smart lawyers too, and there will be no shortage of lawsuits filed against this blatant effort to stifle dissent.

      Sean Parnell
      President
      Center for Competitive Politics
      http;//www.campaignfreedom.org
      http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp

      • ohiohistorian

        If a corporation that is not taking Federal dollars thumbs its nose, what is he going to do? If he tries to use the IRS or any of the three letter agencies, you haven’t seen fireworks yet. And anything less a contractor that doesn’t take Federal money is going to tell him to to pound sand.

        • merryj1

          A corporation or other enterprise that wants government business or to bid on any federal government contract, under this executive order, would have to disclose all donations, donors and recipients of said donations to have their proposal or bid considered. They’re not “taking” federal dollars, they’re trying to compete for federal business.

        • http://www.campaignfreedom.org seandparnell

          Sorry for not getting back to you earlier, I was off to Texas right after I posted this.

          I’m not sure how this gets enforced. The more I think about it, the more problems I see. I assume some procurement policies are established by law, others by the executive branch. Whether the President can arbitrarily change procurement policies so that this information has to be disclosed or people aren’t eligible for federal contracts, I’m not sure. On the back end, I guess you have to have people start pouring through FEC records (publicly available and easy enough to do) and the IRS filings of groups that file 990 reports (not publicly available, and as you note, sure to kick up a storm).

          Sean Parnell
          President
          Center for Competitive Politics
          http://www.campaignfreedom.org
          http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp

    • controse

      “to put into action the impeachment card.” The man does not meet the simple, straight forward Constitutional requirement to even stand for election to the Presidency. What we need are leaders in Congress worthy of our heritage to bring impeachment proceedings forward. If all that was happening were debates on the floor of the House of Representatives concerning impeachment the MSM could not continue to ignore it.

  • layedbackguy2

    The special interest money is out of control!

    Every voter should be informed where the money is coming from, which politicians are getting it, and what they are spending it on.

    ‘Follow the money’ is an old cliche’, but money is power, and Democracy means nothing when the power is hidden and unaccountable.

    • http://www.campaignfreedom.org seandparnell

      Disclosure of contributions made directly to candidates and parties is one thing (a largely useless thing, but with some slight justification). But forcing private organizations to reveal their members and donors to the public, when there’s no real reason to (constitutionally speaking), is just a bad idea.

      I don’t really need to know who’s money is behind the NRA, UAW, Planned Parenthood, the Center for American Progress, or Americans for Prosperity to know what I think of what they’re saying. And there are excellent reasons to keep donor information private, such as protecting them from harassment.

      Sean Parnell
      President
      Center for Competitive Politics
      http;//www.campaignfreedom.org
      http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      He’s the one playing selective disclosure.

      Badly.

  • drfredc

    Big surprise, the nation’s first true Blue President is going to push the Blue Disclose Act outside normal channels.

    Everything President Blubama does is Blue, thru and thru. From his blue stimulus plan, to his waste of a high speed train project, protections for taxpayer abortions, and more… Blue to the core….

    • albro62

      Every time he speaks, I have to run to the shower and clean the slime off.

  • Tbone

    He has zero respect for his Office, the Constitution or the Rule of Law.

    Yes, he should be impeached.

    • aesthete
      • Tbone

        would have not accepted the completion of their terms?

        • aesthete

          In Clinton’s case, look at Waco. In Bush’s, look at the Jose Padilla case. In both their cases, look at the blatantly anti-constitutional garbage that they either shepherded through Congress or that they signed knowing full well that what they were signing was un-Constitutional. You know why Obama won’t be a dictator, or even try? Same reason most of the other Presidents didn’t: because we wouldn’t let them get away from it.

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      you’ve got a list of the 67 Senators we can count on to vote for impeachment. List ‘em.

      • Tbone

        Run along Becker. There must be pro Palin post somewhere that you can channel Art Chance with a stupid response.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          to make a stupid response, given that you own the rights to them.

          Go have someone feed you.

          • Tbone

            Now, go have someone write a better response.

  • sundesy

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs

  • Carol Tarasewicz

    I have had enough of this boychild as POTUS. I think the Red State Task Force should take this one on. I’m in. Does anyone else agree?

    Erick give us our orders, we will do as you say. We cannot let this go without doing something, ASAP. Thank you.

  • Adjoran

    Obama has used regulations and EOs to bypass Congress. The whole Net Neutrality thing is a great example – it not only never passed Congress, but FCC has no statutory authority over the internet anyway. Same thing with EPA and carbon dioxide – they were specifically told not to try to regulate it.

    Rule by fiat is dictatorship in action.

    • markinidaho

      The United States is a Republic – which means “rule of law”. Executive orders are not law, they are “thus saith the King.” They are simply exercise of power by a dictator. As such, they violate the very principles on which this nation was founded.

      It is time to blatantly, in-your-face disobey any and all Executive Orders, and to bring the office of the President back down to where it belongs. The President is not the lawmaker, nor the leader, of the nation. He is the Executive. That means he is required by the Constitution to carry out – “execute” – the laws enacted by the Congress. His “leadership” – if he has any, is to be “servant leadership” – that is, he leads by example. The fraud that is in the office right now has left us an example to follow all right – the Bill Ayers example, or the Saul Alinsky example. We need to follow it, and tell him to shove his executive orders where the sun don’t shine.

  • romeg

    always deals with those who might count themselves in his opposition’s camp. It is indicative of the left’s and, in particular, Obama’s fascination with totalitarian control as evidenced by his stooping and bowing to foreign potentates. This same envy was voiced by FDR regarding Stalin’s ability to make things happen by the mere utterance of his wishes. It is all about wielding power for the meanest and most petty of reasons.

    Anyone who has ever sought political office knows that they are already required to disclose the details of any contribution made to their campaign. If Obama wanted this information it is readily available to anyone seeking it. The EO is merely his way of thumping his chest and saying “Do This Now Because I Say So.”

    He is doing this not because it will benefit the country or taxpayers or even his campaign efforts. He is doing this because he thinks he can get away with it. We, of course,can count upon a sycophantic liberal media to be fully on board, extolling the virtues and benefits of such disclosures, ignoring the erosion of individual liberty and freedom of choice as to how free individuals spend their own money.

  • ag8tor

    Hussein has never been a fan of the Constitution or the Rule of Law if they don’t go along with what he wants to accomplish. He honestly pictures himself as the smartest man in America and to that end he should be the ruler not just the Executive. He has no executive experience. He only has the Chicago way that means you do what you want till somebody stops you. This arrogance will be his downfall eventually. Even the dullards that voted for him will catch on to the fact that he wants to be Fidel, Jr. Hopefully it won’t be too late for the country to overcome. Typical Chicago style, union thug brand of politics but what do you expect from a community organizer? What a pathetic excuse for a human being much less a POTUS.

  • tpiscatella

    If you don’t grease the right politicians, you will not get the government contracts. Impeachment and prosecution are the answers to this thuggery. Come on Congress, do your job!

  • http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/profile/semperfi sirjason

    One of Obama’s first plans of action was to shut down as many Republican businesses in 2009 as possible that did NOT vote for him! The GOP did NOT stop him, would NOT stop him or they could NOT stop him!

    Now the GOP has a majority in the House who, are giving aid and comfort to the Obama regime! Obama bluffed with a government ‘shutdown’ and withholding military pay! Speaker John Boehner folded an unbeatible hand of Four Aces by capitulating!

    Speaker Boehner and the GOP violated their promises of $100 billion in spending cuts with more sickening BS that ended with $352 million dollars worth of unclaimed, previously allocated and committed funds for discontinued projects!

    The debt and deficits continue, the spending continues, Treasury continues printing fiat money that is shrinking the USD daily while Speaker Boehner is their ‘go to guy’ for compromises.

  • Common_Cents

    This guy is disgusting. Taking every dollar from everywhere with no vetting whatsoever.

  • leefox

    ..are an exercise of First Amendment Free Speech Rights.

    Obama is going “under the radar” to restrict free speech of everyone but his socialist pals.

  • adair

    supplies a u-tube link that is terrific.

    Increase the amount of the debt; increase the number of private sector jobs lost; increase the number of public sector jobs added, and it’s a speech that should be given on the floor of our Congress.