Attempts to Manipulate Elections?

[PsyOps (Premo)]

I hope this isn't already posted.

Pajamas Media » LEAKED: Obama Executive Order Intends to Implement Portions of DISCLOSE Act

An impeccable source has provided me with a copy of a draft Executive Order that the White House is apparently circulating for comments from several government agencies. Titled “Disclosure of Political Spending By Government Contractors,” it appears to be an attempt by the Obama administration to implement — by executive fiat — portions of the DISCLOSE Act.

... this proposed Executive Order would require government contractors to disclose:

(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.

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.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but what else would this disclosed information be used for other than weeding out any contractor that contributes to the campaign of the 'opposition'? This is pure elections manipulation in my estimation. Given that the USSC and congress shot this down already, it appears such an executive order would be illegal. No?

[Vince]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I hope this isn't already posted.

Pajamas Media » LEAKED: Obama Executive Order Intends to Implement Portions of DISCLOSE Act



Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but what else would this disclosed information be used for other than weeding out any contractor that contributes to the campaign of the 'opposition'? This is pure elections manipulation in my estimation. Given that the USSC and congress shot this down already, it appears such an executive order would be illegal. No?

Don't think Obama is worried about doing anything illegal. He's gotten away with quite a few illegalities so far and no one has challenged him. Look at what he's done with Arizona and all the illegal aliens coming into the country. Nothing. Look at the support he gives the Unions......in exchange for votes.

[theHypocrite]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I hope this isn't already posted.

Pajamas Media » LEAKED: Obama Executive Order Intends to Implement Portions of DISCLOSE Act



Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but what else would this disclosed information be used for other than weeding out any contractor that contributes to the campaign of the 'opposition'? This is pure elections manipulation in my estimation. Given that the USSC and congress shot this down already, it appears such an executive order would be illegal. No?

conspiracy theory !

[Tilted (Premo)]

Can someone help me out by identifying the portions of the DISCLOSE Act that this draft Executive Order (assuming arguendo that it is real) would supposedly be implementing? Reading it, and based on my recollection of the proposed DISCLOSE Act, it isn't clear to me that it would be implementing portions of that (formerly-proposed) Act. Admittedly, my recollection of that Act could be betraying me - it contained a lot of different provisions and there was more than one version of it - but, at this point, I'm inclined to think that assertion (i.e. that this EO would implement portions of the DISCLOSE Act) is erroneous. I'll try to go back through the Act if I get a chance to confirm that, but if anyone knows what sections of that Act (or what version, as that may be the basis of the disconnect) are being referred to, I'd appreciate the pointer.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by theHypocrite

conspiracy theory !

Then perhaps you could explain why the government wants (or even needs) to know where political donations from businesses and executives (private individuals) are going?

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I hope this isn't already posted.

Pajamas Media » LEAKED: Obama Executive Order Intends to Implement Portions of DISCLOSE Act



Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but what else would this disclosed information be used for other than weeding out any contractor that contributes to the campaign of the 'opposition'? This is pure elections manipulation in my estimation. Given that the USSC and congress shot this down already, it appears such an executive order would be illegal. No?

I can see where the required disclosure of the information could have an intimidating effect, but I can also see where it would create greater transparency with regard to the awarding of federal contracts. Would it be nice for the public to be able to know that the company (or the CFO of such company) that just received a $12 Billion contract (paid for by that public) spent $400,000 last year to run TV ads in support of an incumbent politician that had some sort of influence over the awarding of that contract? I think it might. On the other hand, could the knowledge that this kind of information would be so readily available (even when the contributions or expenditures in question were innocuous) have an intimidating effect on political support or speech? Certainly.

As to the U.S. Supreme Court, it didn't (in Citizens United v FEC) shoot down disclosure requirements. In fact, to the extent it considered them, it upheld them (over Justice Thomas' lone dissent). My guess would be that these disclosure requirements, at least in so far as they refer to contributions or expenditures of the bidding entities themselves and not to the personal contributions or expenditures of directors or officers, would be deemed Constitutional. I'm not sure about the required disclosure regarding directors or officers. I'd add though, that it seems to me that much of what would be required to be disclosed would be redundant - though this EO might require disclosure at different times and in different ways.

[Mongo53]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I hope this isn't already posted.
Pajamas Media » LEAKED: Obama Executive Order Intends to Implement Portions of DISCLOSE Act

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but what else would this disclosed information be used for other than weeding out any contractor that contributes to the campaign of the 'opposition'? This is pure elections manipulation in my estimation. Given that the USSC and congress shot this down already, it appears such an executive order would be illegal. No?

I heard speculation last night, Government Service Unions, Oranizers that primary benifactor is the federal government and 501C's will all be exempt from this, pure speculation, I would NOT run with that until its confirmed. BUT, if this turns out to be the case, then that would pretty confirm it is purely political and abusing the law and authority for political gain.

[theHypocrite]

this is someones conspiracy theory

1) you can go on-line and obtain who contributed to campaigns. there are web site that collect this information and many companies that do this to in order to target potential donors

2) how does this law affect someone is working in the private sector or public sector and writes a personal check to a campaign

again just by looking at 1) and 2) you'll see that this is much ado about nothing

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Mongo53

I heard speculation last night, Government Service Unions, Oranizers that primary benifactor is the federal government and 501C's will all be exempt from this, pure speculation, I would NOT run with that until its confirmed. BUT, if this turns out to be the case, then that would pretty confirm it is purely political and abusing the law and authority for political gain.

To the extent that they weren't "entities submitting offers for federal contracts" they'd be exempt, as would all other entities that weren't submitting offers.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by Tilted

Can someone help me out by identifying the portions of the DISCLOSE Act that this draft Executive Order (assuming arguendo that it is real) would supposedly be implementing? Reading it, and based on my recollection of the proposed DISCLOSE Act, it isn't clear to me that it would be implementing portions of that (formerly-proposed) Act. Admittedly, my recollection of that Act could be betraying me - it contained a lot of different provisions and there was more than one version of it - but, at this point, I'm inclined to think that assertion (i.e. that this EO would implement portions of the DISCLOSE Act) is erroneous. I'll try to go back through the Act if I get a chance to confirm that, but if anyone knows what sections of that Act (or what version, as that may be the basis of the disconnect) are being referred to, I'd appreciate the pointer.

I wonder if this "draft executive order" is even real.