More of the President’s important “stuff”: killing freedom of speech

After dealing with the BCS, next week the President will sign an executive order that stifles freedom of speech.  You see, there is an election coming up, and, donations to the Republican party (an exercise of freedom of speech according to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision) could be problematical.  What better way to solve that problem than by drying up those contributions.

Here is how this scheme works.

Under the order, all companies (and their officers) would be required to list their political donations as a condition to bidding for government contracts. [emphasis supplied]

The “threat” there, of course, is that even if your “mouse trap” is better and cheaper than that of your competitors, you may well lose that government contract because of your political contributions.

Democrats last year tried to ram through the Disclose Act, designed to muzzle those new corporate rights [those affirmed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United] while allowing unions to continue spending at will.  When the party failed to get the bill through even an overwhelmingly Democratic Senate, the White House stepped up.

This soon to be signed executive order has incensed Sen. Collins (R.Me.)  This is more than unusual as, more often than not, Sen. Collins votes with the Democrats.

It has taken decades to create a federal contracting system based on “best prices, best value, best quality,” Ms. Collins says, and the effect of the Obama order is to again have “politics play a role in determining who gets contracts.” Companies may choose not to bid, which will reduce competition and raise government costs. And the order puts “thousands of civil servants” who oversee contracting “in an impossible situation.”

Sen. Collins wrote the above in a letter to the President.  So far, she hasn’t received the courtesy of a reply, and, I doubt she will.

After all, we are approaching an election year, and it won’t do to have companies or their officers donating to Republican party candidates. 

As the President said early on in his term, “I’m the President”.

And, so he is. 

But, his conduct in authorizing this executive order is shameful.

Posted in ,

SoundOffSister

The Sound Off Sister was an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and special trial attorney for the Department of Justice, Criminal Division; a partner in the Florida law firm of Shutts & Bowen, and an adjunct professor at the University of Miami, School of Law. The Sound Off Sister offers frequent commentary concerning legislation making its way through Congress, including the health reform legislation passed in early 2010.

35 Comments

  1. Dimsdale on May 7, 2011 at 11:11 pm

    This is nearly as bad as “card check” in that it is a form of taking people’s secret ballot away from them.? Donating to a candidate that you find agreeable is analogous to voting for them.
    ?
    The president, and his socialist/statist cronies, have devised this scheme to do as SOS has said: dry up donations to his opponents.? With respect to the differential application of the law towards unions, I don’t see how this could be considered constitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, but then, I am not some liberal sod on the supreme court appointed by ?bama.
    ?
    Once again, we find that the Democrats and ?bama consider the Constitution to be more of an obstacle to their power grabs than the supreme law of the land.?? You would think a lecturer that taught constitutional law would be more cognizant of that.
    ?
    ?



    • GdavidH on May 8, 2011 at 12:16 am

      ” You would think a lecturer that taught constitutional law would be more cognizant of that”
      Good one on the “lecturer that taught”!
      I have commented before that in my opinion the manchurian president studied constitutional law so as to learn and understand how best to usurp the constitution.



    • Dimsdale on May 8, 2011 at 12:02 pm

      A version of “know thy enemy” or opposition research?? 😉



  2. RoBrDona on May 8, 2011 at 10:58 am

    By way of local background, Linda McMahon “raised” $50 million v Blumie’s $8.7; while not the best indicator, this?basic dynamic?is critical in WH thinking, as the regime has proven to be viscerally anti-business. The unions will be a reliable source for the O, and with corporate?contributions ?more than likely to skew to the Rep. candidiate, expect to see more insideous and cynical attempts to slow those contributions.
    Socialism has never had a “light touch”: we will see more of the heavy hand of centalized power – coming soon. ?????



    • Dimsdale on May 8, 2011 at 12:05 pm

      The heavy hand of centralized power is just a velvet glove removal away from the iron fist of despotism.
      ?
      The MTA (Mass. Teacher’s Association) publications read like the “Little Book of Socialism”.
      ?



  3. sammy22 on May 8, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    As I recall, the Republicans have been very proud of thee money they were able to raise for their candidates. Faulting Pres. Obama for an executive order that contravenes something the Supreme Court has affirmed (why bother Mr. Pres?), is one thing. To cry about “killing freedom of speech” and “poor us, republican contributors”, and the usual over-the-top slogans is, frankly, not in keeping with quality on this blog.



  4. GdavidH on May 8, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    As I recall, the president is bragging about how he intends to raise 1 billion dollars for his re-election campaign. Where does he intend to get that money? Perhaps that executive order should include all unions and their members voting habits, including Hollywood,?no anonymous donations made with pre-paid cards from Gaza or any other foreign nation, and no donations from the likes of Mickey Mouse. Obama’s first pres. campaign cash raising?was as corrupt as could be and now he’s using the contrived power of the executive branch to gain a cash advantage.

    Please Sammy….OK for me, but not for thee.?

    When?the smoke clears and the country is fundamentally transformed, do you really think by voting democrat there will be a special little gift for you? This country will suck just as much for you as it will for me. Unless you are?secretly a democrat party operative.



  5. kateinmaine on May 8, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    sammy is correct–whining is the domain of the left and should remain their primary pulpit.
    let’s make sure that the unions, registered as corporations i’m sure, are required to meet the same standard–and with the unintended consequence that their members will start publicly taking them to task in an effort to reallocate those usurious proceeds in more equitable fashion.? heck, they might start representing the whole of their membership, instead of the ‘special interests’.? whoa. . .deja vu. . .and not bloody likely.
    but to sos’s point–it will paint a target on companies that deign to support the candidates of their choice and ultimately politicize any attempts to engage in profitable commerce.? this executive order is the logical business extension of the marauding subsets of the dem party camping out on? front lawns and terrorizing because they don’t like one’s thoughts, beliefs or actions.
    free speech?? no–this is much worse.? it seeks to subvert free will.



    • Dimsdale on May 8, 2011 at 6:34 pm

      Exactly: equal protection or prosecution to both the president’s supporters AND the supporters of his opponents.
      ?
      By the way, how is that FEC investigation going on the source of ?bama’s funding in the 2008 election?? Did Mickey Mouse, living in Europe, explain how they were able to illegally donate to the now president’s election campaign?? (“Obama accepting untraceable donations”, Washington Post October 29, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413.html )



  6. Eric on May 8, 2011 at 7:16 pm

    This loser actually thinks he’s a king! ?If Congress had a set of onions they could do an end run on his silly little exec. order… and they should!



  7. Jeff S on May 8, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    Welcome to the “Soviet States of America”



  8. Gary J on May 8, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    Why I remember this. ?It is covered by the USSR constitution? or was it China?



    • Gary J on May 8, 2011 at 9:31 pm

      How both houses can sit there and do nothing while the dictator is doing these things is beyond me and it’s our own fault for electing them.



  9. MiddleoftheRoad on May 9, 2011 at 7:28 am

    This is a method that can finally work to clean up corruption.? Right now, a corporation doing business with the government can take taxpayer money ? your money ? and use it to elect legislators who will vote to give them more contracts. In total secret.? Maybe once and for all the long standing practice of “I’ll donate X amount of dollars to your campaign if you accept my contract.? It’s called Transparency.? Get used to it because the people are demanding more and more of it as their faith in Government erodes.?



    • GdavidH on May 9, 2011 at 9:00 am

      Thanks for making the case! You just described what the unions are doing and have been doing for years….minus the “in total secret”. They know they have nothing to fear.



    • Dimsdale on May 10, 2011 at 3:52 pm

      Let us not forget that ?bamacare was crafted in complete secret, then rammed through “so that we can see what is in it”.
      ?
      I would love to get use to a little transparency!



  10. MiddleoftheRoad on May 9, 2011 at 7:33 am

    Of course this notion of “killing freedom of speech” is just typical TEAhadist speak.
    Typical Vicevich speak.? Take something, completely twist it to mean something that it isn’t so as to further attack the President.? Limbaugh, Beck, Ingraham, Vicevich, etc., same ‘ol shtick.



    • TomL on May 9, 2011 at 7:45 am

      Then you wouldn’t have a problem with it going thru the House and Senate as a bill and have it include the unions, rather than executive order. That would be transparency.



    • Tim-in-Alabama on May 9, 2011 at 9:31 am

      TEAhadist? Why is your name MiddleoftheRoad when you’re driving in the left lane? Are you at least driving a hybrid?



    • Steve M on May 9, 2011 at 10:35 am

      He found a cool new word in the Urban dictionary.



    • Dimsdale on May 10, 2011 at 8:30 am

      It is what all the cool D-baggers with no argument resort to!



  11. MiddleoftheRoad on May 9, 2011 at 8:07 am

    I wouldn’t have a problem with that in the least!? I think the true purpose of a Union has completely turn around.? Unions were created back when to give a person a fair days wage (and working conditions) for a fair days work.? Now it’s give me as much as I want for as little work as I can get away with doing.? Of course, that’ s not true of all Unions and of all workers in all Unions but you know what I mean….



    • Dimsdale on May 9, 2011 at 3:09 pm

      Then you? have struck on the crux of our complaint and agree with it: unions are not being scrutinized when corporations are.? Different sides of the same coin.
      ?
      So what was your complaint exactly?



    • MiddleoftheRoad on May 9, 2011 at 5:40 pm

      I wasn’t the one complaining about the executive order.? I was responding to it.? ? I”m for transparency.? And if revealing the contributors and amounts made to political elections for ANY party becomes a law or executive order, I’m ok with that, REGARDLESS of the contributor.? Too often deals are made in back rooms because some person and or some corporation donated to some person’s or some parties campaign.? It’s been going on for years.? Enough!? And if you think Unions only contribute to the Dems, think again.? Not all do.??? There should be a significant decrease in the amount of money a person or corporation can donate to a politician or party and if ALL contributors are held to the same standard, maybe the corruption and back room deals will end.? But dont’ kids yourself. It’s been happening in ALL parties.



    • Dimsdale on May 10, 2011 at 8:33 am

      Great!? We agree!?? Let’s see more transparency!? And as a corollary to your statement, if you think all corporations give only to conservatives, think again.? Just look at the last presidential election (see above).



  12. sammy22 on May 9, 2011 at 10:22 am

    Well, great news!! Politics of all stripes is corrupt and campaign contributions are tainted!! WOW. What I find more distressing is the sloganeering such as “killing freedom of speech”. The country needs something better than that, more informative debate and less mudslinging. Shame on both Dems and the Republicans for fostering it.



    • Dimsdale on May 9, 2011 at 3:10 pm

      When Republicans go after unions and leave others alone, as ?bama has done, then you can say that.



  13. Steve M on May 9, 2011 at 10:30 am

    This executive order is not exclusive to political contributions to a party or candidate. Those rules have been in place for awhile now. This new EO requires private businesses who want to contract with the federal government to provide information concerning donations to all groups, not just candidates.

    ?

    It should not make a difference, since federal contracts are supposed to go to the lowest bid (period) as long as the contract meets the specified requirements.

    ?

    But you see, the government and the Obama administration want to see if you’re donating to a local TEA party. They gotta know…



  14. sammy22 on May 9, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    And the Right wants to know who contributes to ACORN, where Soros is sending his money. Both sides want to “gain” an advantage so they can say:” See……?”



    • Dimsdale on May 10, 2011 at 8:34 am

      The problem with ACORN is that WE have been contributing to them, in the form of actual subsidies, against our wishes and beliefs.



  15. sammy22 on May 10, 2011 at 11:57 am

    Who is this WE, pray tell. I resent “contributing” indirectly through the corporations from whom I buy products and services.



    • Dimsdale on May 10, 2011 at 3:56 pm

      “We” is you and me.? And I resent “contributing” indirectly to ACORN via confiscatory taxes.? I resent paying for government largesse through taxes on corporations and fuel taxes that are just passed down to me.? I resent paying more for any product that ends up as lobbying “lubricant” used to slather down some pol to get favorable legislation.
      ?
      At least you can choose not to buy a product from a particular corporation.? I don’t get that choice about money going to Planned Parenthood and ACORN.



  16. sammy22 on May 10, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    I could choose to go into the woods and live off the land (no thanks), and you could choose not to pay taxes. Either way there are consequences.



    • Dimsdale on May 10, 2011 at 6:49 pm

      Undoubtedly, but one choice is uncomfortable, the other, prosecutable.? See the difference?



    • GdavidH on May 10, 2011 at 7:50 pm

      Didn’t Harry Reid try to tell us that the income tax in the U.S. was voluntary?

      And by the way….for some of us, living off the land is starting to look pretty darn good. It’ll take them years to figure out how to tax that. Call it the Gault tax.



square-obama-speech

The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.