Opaque Obama Discovers Transparency

Barack Obama, like all good "reform" candidates, promised that his administration would be the most transparent in American history. It has turned out to be the murkiest since Richard Nixon's. Ignoring the facts and the evidence (along with ignoring Congress and the Supreme Court), Obama has unofficially decided that he will add a convenient "transparency" to his agenda. "Full disclosure" is the order of the day.

All right, when you compose yourselves and stop laughing, you will find out that he certainly isn't talking about himself, his cabinet, or his czars. He's talking about contractors who do business with the federal government. In addition to the immense paperwork involved in "bids" and accounting, Obama wants the prospective contractors to reveal their campaign contributions. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney neither confirms nor denies that Obama is preparing an executive order requiring these revelations, but admits it could be accomplished by an executive order. That sounds like a confirmation that just such an executive order is being prepared.

A week after announcing his candidacy for re-election (surprise, surprise), Obama has instituted what could be considered a double end-run. The first around the Supreme Court, and the second around Congress. This from the man who claimed he wouldn't be doing any end-runs. During a State of the Union address, he mixed politics and constitutional law and got the holding in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission wrong. But he got the gist of it right--it allowed businesses to participate directly in elections (so long as they remain independent of the campaigns). He didn't like the decision, and has been trying to undo it ever since.

Having failed to win at the Supreme Court, he moved on to Congress. Saying that "it is crucial to allow taxpayers to learn more about contractors who seek federal funds," Obama and his pals in Congress tried to pass the Disclose Act. The Senate killed that one, on the ground that the taxpayer needs to know that the contractor is ready, willing and truly able to perform on the contract, but not where the contractor spends its political funds. At the time, both houses of Congress were still in Democratic hands, and he still couldn't get this scam past them.

The American people still can't get straight answers out of the Prevaricator-in-Chief about his political connections to convicted felon and land speculator Tony Rezko, but he now expects us to believe his motive for requiring contractors to reveal their political contributions is to protect the taxpayer. Aw, horse manure. This is nothing short of political extortion, designed to squelch contracts for those who aren't in the Obama camp. More importantly, it is designed to get campaign money out of those who are willing to sell their souls to the Democrats (like General Electric, for instance).

Stan Soloway, president of the 350 member Professional Services Council, put it very well: "The draft order says it is necessary to ensure that politics are not allowed to impair the integrity of the procurement process. But by force-feeding irrelevant information to government contracting officers, who would otherwise never consider such factors in source selection, the rule would actually do precisely what it is intended to stop: inject politics into the source selection process."

But Press Secretary Carney, who knows every jot and tittle of the draft but won't confirm its existence, says that President Squeaky-Clean believes "very strongly that taxpayers deserve to know how contractors are spending their money, and his goal is transparency and accountability." If you believe that, let me tell you my story about my space alien abduction--soon to be printed in the National Enquirer.

The Washington Post once again editorializes on the news pages by saying: "The move suggests that Democrats are not backing down from their effort to make transparency in elections a priority. During the midterms, Obama and Democratic congressional leaders spoke often about the need to disclose donors' identities to the interest groups, which tended to favor Republican candidates (emphasis added)." You see, unions are not "interest groups." MoveOn.org and George Soros are surely concerned only with the public good.

What really rankles Obama and the socialist cadres of the Democratic Party is that after Citizens United and the defeat of the Disclose Act, Republicans were raising more money than the unions Democrats. And then there was the November 2010 "shellacking" of the Democrats. None of this could be caused by a leveling of the political playing field, so it must be a nefarious plot by Republican plutocrats who are unfairly influencing the elections process.

So once again, The One has decided that he is omniscient. He is both smarter and holier-than-thou, including the Supreme Court and his own Congress. I know I'm just a poor retired country lawyer, but I can't help thinking that such an executive order would violate both the First Amendment and the major holdings in Citizens United. There is absolutely no compelling state interest in revealing the political donors and donations in relation to federal contractors.

But there is certainly a political interest--threatening those who might oppose Obama and rewarding those who support him. And if you think that doesn't work, consider General Electric Chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Immelt. General Electric not only made billions in profits while paying zero taxes on its income (derived in large part from government contracts and stimulus funds), but Immelt was so good at what he does that our grateful President appointed him as head of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Guess which political party and which candidate received the lion's share of GE's political contributions. Transparency and taxpayer protection, my arse.