Forcing Political Disclosure as Condition for Federal Bidding?

Of late, I have intentionally avoided posting much about politics, primarily because of the fatigue it seems to generate with every attempt to generate outrageous outrage. But there is a story in the Wall Street Journal today that may warrant a little attention. Normally, I wouldn't want to preemptively overreact to something that hasn't happened yet, but I find this concerning enough to comment:

President Obama has officially kicked off his 2012 re-election campaign, and don't Republicans know it. The president is expected any day now to sign an executive order that routs 70 years of efforts to get politics out of official federal business.

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

On the surface, that doesn't sound so bad, does it? Isn't disclosure a good thing for someone going after taxpayer dollars? Political contributions are protected by the First Amendment, although highly regulated. Shouldn't contractors who received funding from the federal government disclose any contributions that might shed light on any special treatment or earmarks they receive? Right now, the way this disclosure usually happens is through FEC regulations that require elected officials to disclose the contributions they receive. Now, however, the President is proposing an Executive Order that makes this disclosure a condition of the bid for contracts. Which in turn, gives the Government the inherent authority - or at least opportunity - to steer contracts away from companies based on the politics of their officers, as opposed to just assessing the organization's ability to fulfill the terms of the contract through the competitive bidding process. On the flip side, the Government could "reward" companies that contribute to the "right" party. Steering contracts based on political favors is an icky business, and when caught often results in scandal, if not prosecution. So, again, why not protect the taxpayer by requiring disclosure? Well, in this case, the presumptive EO doesn't apply to everybody who receives Government funding:

The draft order, which came out last month, would require federal bidders to supply a complete list of all political contributions made by the company, its political action committee, and its senior executives—going back two full years. (Richard Nixon would be impressed.) More astounding, the order requires the list to include donations made to third-party political groups—disclosure that is not currently required by law, and that is, as a result, surely unconstitutional.

Ever audacious, the White House is spinning this as "reform," claiming taxpayers deserve to know how federal dollars being paid to contractors are being spent in campaigns. This might hold (a drop of) water if the executive order also required all the (liberal) entities that get billions in taxpayer dollars via federal grants and funding—unions, environmental groups, Planned Parenthood—to disclose also. It doesn't.

Ah, and therein lies the rub. If you can ask "Why not require contractors to disclose their political contributions before receiving contract awards?" then you should also be asking, "Why not require unions, environmental groups, arts groups, Planned Parenthood and a host of other organizations that receive Government funding to disclose their political contributions?" The proposed Executive Order isn't reform - it is targeted to discourage businesses from contributing at all, or at least, make it easier to identify "favorites" based on politics instead of capability. If you want true reform, apply it to everybody, push it through the legislative process instead of EO regulation, and see if it can stand up in court.

It has taken decades to create a federal contracting system based on "best prices, best value, best quality," Ms. [Susan] 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."

Of course, this will impact Democrat office holders as well, especially those in districts that are home to contractors, and will undoubtedly hurt their campaigns as well. Here's another interesting point that I take from the WSJ article: The reason the administration is pursuing this through Executive Order is that even when the Democrats controlled Congress, they couldn't push the Disclose Act through (which would have had a similar effect as the proposed EO). Why is the administration intent on going around Congress to interfere with the contracting and acquisition processes?

I'll leave that to you to figure out.