Obama trying to intimidate GOP donors while exempting own

Post Reply New Topic

The proposal demands that companies hoping to do business with the government disclose political gifts made within two years of the contract submission. A preview statement from Chairman Darrell Issa described “bipartisan alarm” over the suggested rule, which many think could lead to a “spoils system”. (A system, for instance, that would not be out of place in Chicago.) As Mr. Issa points out, noticeably absent from the White House Executive Order is any such requirement for unions.

To their credit, a number of Democrats, including Senators Claire McCaskill and Joe Lieberman, are on record opposing the White House measure.

Steny Hoyer, the number two Democrat in the House, is also against it. He argues that “contracting ought to be on the merits of the contractor’s application and bid and capabilities….I think there are some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political contributions in the context of awarding contracts.”

Another Democrat, Gerry Connolly, says it might “have a chilling effect on the ability of people freely to participate in the political process and donate as they see fit.”

At the committee hearings yesterday, law professor Bradley Smith described the order as “ill-advised” and said it “represents an attempted power grab by the Obama administration on campaign finance issues.” Committee Chair Sam Graves noted that some 360,000 small companies do business with the federal government; this is just one more regulatory burden for those firms.

Scurrying to develop other ways to clamp down on GOP money-raising and influence, the Obama administration also has the IRS scrutinizing gifts made to non-profit groups that have political leanings. The tax authority has sent letters to five wealthy donors questioning, for the first time, the treatment of gifts to such advocacy groups. President Obama has long been on the warpath against such entities, that are organized as 501(c)(4)s and that have become increasingly powerful vehicles for political activists.

The IRS has gone out of its way to portray this unprecedented inquiry as the labor of two “career civil servants” in the estate and gift tax department, trying to suppress suspicions that the move is politically motivated. Still, the Financial Times calls the move a “radical departure in how tax authorities have treated such “gifts” over the last 30 years.”

The timing of the investigation is, to put it mildly, suspect. The media has emphasized that while the Koch brothers, Karl Rove and other leading conservatives have supported such organizations, uber-liberal George Soros might also be caught in the net. That is true, but Republicans are unquestionably much bigger supporters of such groups.

Looking ahead to the 2012 election, President Obama and his cohorts would do well to focus on those issues of importance to American voters, such as putting forward a reasoned and effective fiscal blueprint, pushing forward job-creating measures such as the still-stalled free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia, and devising a realistic means to reduce our dependence on imported oil.

It will be policies that decide the course of our economy and the outcome of the 2012 elections, and not Chicago-style shenanigans.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/ ... op-voters/

This is why people should never trust a politician from Chicago.

If there is nothing wrong with doing these political gifts, then why would business want them to to be a secret and not shared with the public? And why would the politicians not want people to know about that?

Bipartisan ALARM ! !!!11 We will have to disclose bribes Oh no!

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 13 May 2011, 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There's nothing wrong with taking a toddler to the park, either, but that doesn't mean one should have to give one's GPS coordinates to sexual predators.

Agreed.



Actually, this could arguably make it so people are more prone to taking bribes. Pay to play, as you were. As it stands currently a company can claim they donated to a particular elected official when they try to shake them down, when in reality they are donating far more to that individual's opponent to get him thrown out of office.

Yeah well, that's a failed analogy.

Seriously, you would have to be seriously rationalizing things to think that bribery is ok to keep undisclosed. Or to think it is like taking a toddler to the park.

Not to say that you are not allowed to take a toddler to the park if you are not a parent and don't have permission and if you do have permission it may be a nice idea to have a signed one.

Sure why not. As long as they disclose it, still much better than it is now.

Actually with the way leftists behave, it isn't. They probably don't want the SEIU thugs on their lawn, receiving death threats, being harassed, etc. And don't say it won't happen, because its already happened in the fight over gay marriage in California.



We're not rationalizing bribery, you're saying it is okay to silence people's 1st Amendment rights.

We've already seen what happens when leftist groups get that information and the tactics they use to harass people that donate to candidates that leftists don't like.

It is all the leftists fault , ok.

So, if the leftists will find out any way, why not make it so this always needs to be disclosed? That way you, well-meaning good citizen rightists will also have access to such information, instead of letting the evil, immoral leftists have the monopoly on this information.

If you bothered to read the article:



So it looks more like Obama's proposal is a form of blackmail or Chicago-style politics.

If it was about public disclosure, I'd be for it. However, this is being used as a political weapon to change the law in a manner that favors his re-election.

Inuyasha's original post is not about illegal bribes; it's about campaign contributions that are as legal as a parent taking his toddler to the park.

Look, speaking here as a commie pinko bleeding-heart liberal, I feel the need to point something out.

The unions - which is to say the businesses which take advantage of the plight of the working rabble - are not political.

They are the same greedy scum as the RNC donors. They just send their dollars where they think they get the most return for them.

Agreed, and Obama wants this information to persecute people that have donated to his political opponents and reward those that donated to him.

Yes, they are legal bribes that is clear.

So , why not disclose them? They are legal things, and there's nothing wrong about people finding out...

And of course, make it so the disclosure requirement also works for unions. But let's be honest, it is not because unions are not included that those guys are issuing bipartisan alarms! about this. Else they would just ask to include unions in it.

Because of how it would be used, which is to persecute or punish people for supporting a political candidate someone else disagrees with (nevermind the fact that it is illegal). If I donate to a political party it really isn't any of your business.

Oh, those poor, oppressed multinational corporations!

Then why are Unions exempt?

Normally corporations donate about 50/50, Obama is just upset that the Chamber of Commerce got fed up with his anti-business policies and would not stand for Obama trying to run them out of business for his welfare state.