Federal Politics

Published — April 22, 2011 Updated — May 19, 2014 at 12:19 pm ET

SOLUTIONS: Forcing contractors to disclose contributions is a good first step

Introduction

Each year, government contractors spend mountains of money to influence politicians, and then—in a remarkable coincidence—are richly rewarded with billions of dollars in government contracts. It’s a pay-to-play scheme government officials try to keep hidden from the American public, but is common knowledge inside the Beltway.

A step in the right direction is the White House’s proposed executive order that would require government contractors to disclose political contributions totaling over $5,000 before receiving government contracts. Although the contributions made by company officials to candidates and parties is already reported to the Federal Election Commission, significantly, the order would also require disclosure of contributions made by individuals and the company itself to third parties that make independent expenditures or electioneering communications.

It is this last type of contribution that is so significant. Following the Supreme Court’s disastrous Citizens United decision in January 2010, corporations have been permitted to donate unlimited sums to groups with innocuous sounding names like American Crossroads and the American Action Network. These groups spent millions on political ads in the mid-term elections, pillorying candidates. Americans have no idea whose money was behind these ads and therefore had no context in which to weigh them.

Although it was primarily groups supporting Republican candidates who used these vehicles last cycle, Democrats vow not to be outspent again this time around and are forming their own independent expenditure committees. Given the stakes in a presidential election, the $4 billion spent in the mid-terms will likely be dwarfed by spending over the next year and a half.

Congress tried to address the problem of anonymous spending last year with the DISCLOSE Act, which would have countered the influence of undisclosed contributions by requiring groups to show the names of top donors in campaign advertisements. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who yesterday called the proposed executive order an “outrageous and anti-Democratic abuse of executive branch authority,” fought tooth and nail against the bill. He steadfastly claimed there was something un-American about informing the public who was behind the shady ads bombarding the airwaves. He was successful; the measure fell one vote short in the face of a Republican filibuster.

McConnell has never met a campaign finance regulation he liked so it is hard to take his latest protestations too seriously. Notably, it was McConnell who championed ex-Rep. Tom DeLay’s former campaign finance lawyer Don McGahn to be appointed to the FEC. McGahn is largely responsible for the commission’s refusal to enforce even those campaign finance laws on the books.

Further, McConnell’s opposition to disclosure is a somewhat recent phenomenon. In the 1980s, he was in favor of post-Watergate disclosure laws and even introduced bipartisan legislation with Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., that would have required disclosure of independent groups or individuals who intended to spend more than $25,000 promoting or attacking a candidate. In the 1990s, McConnell claimed to favor public disclosure of all election-related spending, again including spending by independent groups and contributions to political parties.

So basically McConnell voted for disclosure before he voted against it.

With the Senate Republican Leader obstinately standing in the way of any common sense reforms, President Obama has had to look for new ways to fill the void and the executive order is a good one. But even if the order becomes law, donations by corporations that don’t have government contracts will remain secret. Further, it is an open question as to just how many individuals or corporations will rethink making a contribution if it has to be disclosed. Surely some will choose to sit out the election, but likely not all. In any event, we are guaranteed to see even more vitriolic ads funded by anonymous donors blitzing our television screens in the upcoming campaign season.

Melanie Sloan is executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting ethics and accountability in government and public life.

Read more in Federal Politics

Share this article

Join the conversation

Show Comments

11
Leave a Reply

avatar
9 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
SOUTH JERSEYTed SiroisMark SullivanTom LarkinAnonymous Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mark Sullivan
Guest
Mark Sullivan

Trump needs to conduct these activities because the entire MSM media, excluding Fox, is campaigning against him 24/7/365.

Didn’t Monica’s boyfriend’s wife and various criminal enterprises outspend Trump by almost 2-1?

CapitalistRoader
Guest
CapitalistRoader

Why wouldn’t he get an early start on fund raising? Hillary outspent him two-to-one in 2016. The Dem’s are the party of big money. The President knows this and is attempting to get a jump on it. Of course the Dem candidate will outspend him in 2020 so it’s only rational that he starts fund raising now.

George Young
Guest
George Young

Oh brother. We just 8 years of the Campaigner – in – Chief. Where was this journalistic rectal thermometer then. Just another article about 2000 words too long that merely takes another slap at Trump for something he far from initiated.

j stevenson
Guest
j stevenson

The big difference between Trump and all the rest is his refusing to accept funds from lobbyists, so they don’t have the White House access they are used to. These are the donors who buy the presidency and are as pixxed off that he won the election as are the media and the Dems. Lobbyists have never been shut out of the WH and Trump has told them he is not for sale.

jan v
Guest
jan v

all the lobbyists are running all our government agencies and all the career civil servants who know how to run the country have been fired. YOU think this is a good thing ? what a crock…

thomas alessi
Guest
thomas alessi

I am for Trump

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Trump needs to be impeached and tossed in prison. Then have the key thrown away so he will never be free. Then he can see how it feels not to have freedom.

Mark Sullivan
Guest
Mark Sullivan

Thank you for the usual insightful leftist low IQ Snowflake response.

barney
Guest

hes not imprisoning them hes sending them back to their country chill tf out

SOUTH JERSEY
Guest
SOUTH JERSEY

WHY DONT YOU HAVE FREEDOM?

Tom Larkin
Guest
Tom Larkin

First, something positive. I was happy to learn of empirical information in article. BUT, the article was so slanted against President Trump as to be deemed fake news (“Perhaps Trump just lied.” (Two different issues)). The article mentions that President Trump raised over $67 million, but ended 2018 with $19 million. President Trump spent over $40 million 2016 and 2017. President Trump conducted 57 political rallies. The article notes the hats and T-shirts sold, but NEVER MENTIONS THE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF REPUBLICAN SENATORS during a mid-term election that lost the House and the number of political rallies in… Read more »

Ted Sirois
Guest
Ted Sirois

At least Trump is getting donations from willing donors. Fresh from his first election, Obama used billions of our children’s tax dollars to save thousands of union jobs in the car industry and bailed out the banks and many Wall Street businesses. This secured his source of reelection funds for his reelection four years later.

South Jersey
Guest
South Jersey

TRUMP 2020; IS AN AMAZINGLY SMART MAN! VERY ORIGINAL & CREATIVE. I AM HAPPY TO HAVE HIS AS POTUS.

SOUTH JERSEY
Guest
SOUTH JERSEY

THIS ARTICLE WAS OBVIOUSLY WRITTEN BY, A TRUMP-HATE-GROUP. THAT FEELS; IT IS NOT NORMAL TO BE SUCCESSFUL WITH YOUR OWN BRAND NAME. WHEN, IF FACT, IT IS NORMAL! >>>>> THIS IS >>> FAKE NEWS!!! <<<< ie: A PACK-OF-LIES; SPUN INTO; DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. FOR A SINISTER-AGENDA OF; FASCIST DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST, COUP D'ETAT

David
Guest
David

Are you on some kind of drugs? Writing in caps makes me think that you are grumpy old fart or a uneducated hillbilly.