Pay-to-Play Disclosure For Government Contractors - UPDATE Strong Reactions and a Not-Too Transparent White House
Notably, that alert observed:
Notably, that alert observed:
Last year, we reported here and here that certain elements of the Executive Branch have been looking into ways to impose federal pay-to-play restrictions and disclosure requirements on those doing business with the federal government. Today, the White House confirmed that President Obama is strongly contemplating issuing an executive order designed to impose pay-to-play disclosures on federal contractors in a big way.
As announced by the White House, the President is examining an order that would mandate that all federal contractors disclose any and all contributions to groups that engage in political activities. This is contemplated, the White House says, in direct response to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens United v. FEC (discussed here) and Congress’ failure to enact the DISCLOSE Act (discussed here).
To learn more about what, exactly, the President has in mind, one needed to be on board Air Force One (headed to California on a Presidential and DNC fundraising swing, ironically enough) to hear White House Press Secretary Jay Carney say the following:
Q Jay, there was -- there were reports this morning that the administration is considering an executive order requiring companies seeking government contracts to disclose their contributions to groups that under current law would be secret. Is that correct?
MR. CARNEY: Well, what I can tell you is there is a draft -- there’s a process, and it’s in the -- it’s part of a process. There’s a draft, and the particular specifics of that executive order could change over time, so I can’t talk about the specifics. What I can tell you is the President is committed to improving our federal contracting system, making it more transparent and more accountable. He believes that American taxpayers deserve that, and that's what he intends to pursue through this executive order.
Q Is there any political goals behind this?
MR. CARNEY: Quite the contrary. He believes very strongly that taxpayers deserve to know whether or not the contractors that their money is going to is being used -- how they're spending their money, and how -- whether they're -- how they're spending in terms of political campaigns. And his goal is transparency and accountability. That's the responsible thing to do when you’re handling taxpayer dollars.
Q Is he likely to go ahead with the executive order? Or is there another way to accomplish it?
MR. CARNEY: I can’t -- there’s an executive order in the draft process. I can’t give you any specifics on it because the specifics could change. That's the nature of the process.
Q Jay, on a trip like this that combines presidential events with campaign events, can you talk about how it’s funded? For example, there are no presidential events in Los Angeles. Is that entire part of the trip funded through the campaign?
MR. CARNEY: Ari, you know the -- when there is travel like this that involves official travel and also political travel, this administration very diligently follows all the same rules that the Bush administration did. And as far as the specifics on how that breaks down, I’ll have to get back to you. I don't have that. But we’re very careful about making sure that all those rules are followed.
“Diligently [following] all the same rules that the Bush administration did” and breaking substantial new ground all at the same time. That’s a pretty impressive two-step.
One immediate challenge comes to mind: if all federal contractors and bidders are required to disclose their contributions to groups of any kind that engage in political or issue advocacy, how does one prevent federal contract officers from demonstrating bias against bidders supporting unpopular views or the party out of power? This is a decent enough effort at transparency that strikes me as having the potential to trod all over our constitutional rights to free expression and freedom of association. To quote David Wenhold, immediate past president of the American League of Lobbyists, “Sunlight is good, but sometimes too much sunshine can cause cancer.”
This is definitely one to stay tuned to.