The June 5 editorial “Campaign finance end run” may be correct that one solution to possible contractor “pay-to-play” abuse is banning federal contractors from making any political contributions, including through third-party entities. But the reality is that Congress is not likely to take such a step anytime soon. Meanwhile, powerful special interests, many of which bid on federal contracts, continue to pour huge sums of money into the political system without meaningful accountability or disclosure that helps the public connect the dots. Someone has to act, sooner rather than later.
The president should be applauded for not sitting on his hands. He has modeled his draft executive order on successful disclosure policies employed by numerous states, America’s laboratories of democracy. While such disclosure may be a prophylactic, it is at least a first step to bringing fairness and accountability to the contracting process in a post-Citizens United world.
Gary D. Bass, Washington
The writer is executive director of OMB Watch.
l
The Post editorial board is right to be skeptical of the Obama administration’s efforts to enact part of the failed Disclose Act by doing an end run around Congress. There has been no recent scandal or problem the administration can point to as justification for the proposed executive order, and if implemented, it would inject politics into the federal contracting process.
Political contributions are already disclosed. What remains private, as should be the case, are donations and membership payments to advocacy groups and trade associations that engage in a small amount of political speech alongside their major work, which by law is nonpolitical.
If put in place, this executive order would send a chilling message to the executives and directors of companies that do even a little bit of government work: Watch whom you support or you may wind up on the new “Enemies List.” How does exposing citizens and companies to official retaliation if they support the ‘wrong’ causes benefit the contracting process?
Sean Parnell, Alexandria
The writer is president of the Center for Competitive Politics.
l
I am still vibrating over the words “a misguided but constitutionally based Supreme Court ruling,” used in the June 5 editorial in describing the Supreme Court ruling on campaign contributions. This was the issue between President Obama and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. at the 2010 State of the Union address, if you remember, where the justice shook his head in disagreement as he listened to Mr. Obama’s attack on the ruling.
The editorial implies a constitutionally based ruling is out of line — out of which line? The Post’s preferences over the Constitution of the United States? You owe your readers an explanation of why you seem to think the Supreme Court is misguided in basing its rulings on the Constitution.
Roderick S. Speer, Alexandria
Loading...
Comments