Dem opposition to disclosure plan grows

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: The Hill

Democratic opposition is growing to a draft proposal under consideration by President Obama to force prospective government contractors to reveal political contributions.

Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Chairman Joe Lieberman (Conn.), an independent who caucuses with Democrats, and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) sent a letter Thursday voicing their opposition.

“We are concerned that requiring businesses to disclose their political activity when making an offer risks injecting politics into the contracting process,” the lawmakers wrote. “Federal contracting law already precludes the consideration of political activity in evaluating contract offers.”

McCaskill is the chairwoman of Homeland Security’s subcommittee on government contracting.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/160867-democratic-opposition-grows-against-order-requiring-federal-contractors-to-reveal-political-activity

[DJ13]

1. Lieberman, McCaskill

If those two DINO's didnt object it would be news.

[formercia]

19. The Ladies doth protest too much, Methinks n/t

[villager]

2. What an *entirely* fucking worthless political party

n/t

[Autumn]

4. +1 Time to clean up the tent and throw the elephants

out on their asses.

[DontTreadOnMe]

3. The Senate Whores don't want to reveal their paychecks!

We need to push back hard on these whores.

[buddysmellgood]

12. I find that reference insulting to whores. Whores are up front

about the services they offer.

[elleng]

5. damn

[Dr Fate]

6. DLCers, Blue Dogs, whatever they call themselves this week, agree with the Far Right, as usual. n/t

n/t

[yurbud]

25. they agree with whoever their masters tell them too.

[AngryAmish]

7. If they don't support the right people they don't deserve a contract

It is that simple.

[Uncle Joe]

8. The Obama Administration can get around this Republican criticism by setting

the date for the proposed law to take effect in 2016, which would be the latest an Obama Administration could be in power.

Some Republican critics have charged that President Obama of trying to snoop on the political activities of companies in order to punish those that oppose his administration.

As for the no bid contracts awarded to Halliburton when Cheney/Bush were in power, I find it hard to believe that politics doesn't already come into play with the contracting process.

Thanks for the thread, Freddie Stubbs.

[Old and In the Way]

9. The ones that complain the most, have the most to hide.

Bought and paid for by their corporate sponsors.

[buddysmellgood]

10. Now we KNOW it really needs to be done.

[Angry Dragon]

11. THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW

That is the part that is forgotten in all this bull.
The people have the right to know who is buying whom.

They are putting their money into the political process.
Politics are public
So that makes any monetary contribution public.........

[Old and In the Way]

13. So, 2 Democrats are complaining..bfd. How many Republicans are complaining?

I hate these stories and the way they get framed to the public.

[young but wise]

14. +1

[999998th word]

22. + another 1

[Dr Fate]

15. If the 2 DEMS were acting like good LIBERALS (GASP!) instead of Far Right trash....

...AKA "centrists"- then there would be nothing for you to hate and little for the media to frame.

Not the media's fault per se- but the fault of "centrists" who thought it would be cute to oppose the majority of voters and instead side with the far right.

The media is not forcing any DEMS or 3rd party "centrists" to ape right wing jerks- they are doing that just fine all on their own.

Important to note that Joe is not a DEM- although he won his seat on a 3rd party, pro-Bush, pro-War ticket with support from the DLC.

[Old and In the Way]

16. You miss my point.

The lede says growing Democrat resistance...I see one Independent and 1 Democrat...this is "growing"? How about telling us how many Republicans, the Party who benefits hugely from corporate funding; what % of their caucus is complaining? I can then decide (1)if its the Democrats who are the problem or if the author of this POS is using the Democratic brand to mask the Party who really has a problem with this legislation.

[Dr Fate]

17. No, I got your point. I used it to make a new one.

Yup- the media is biased, and these 2 jerks HANDED THEM the opening to be biased.

If they were being good Liberals instead of conservat...err, I mean "centrists", the media would essentially have to make something up to make "growing" Democratic postions on this issue seem incorrect or unpopular.

Also, if all the other top name DEMS with media access who support The President on this(Including Obama himself) fails to call out these 2 DEMS BY NAME- or otherwise fails to "twist their arms" into doing the right thing, then it is arguable that Democrats in general are part of the problem- aside from any facts this author reported.

Sorry- but the "good cop/bad cop" game does not work for me anymore.

If Obama and a majority of DEMS are opposed to Lieberman and his buddy, then let them CALL THEM OUT- BY NAME. If they cant do this and the bill fails b/c "We dont have the votes"- then all I see is more good cop/bad cop tricks.

[Dr Fate]

18. Obama, Reid, Pelosi call out McCaskill & Lieberman BY NAME for their opposition (Link included)

Fooled ya!

But wouldnt it be a good idea if they did? Or, we could always just list excuses in advance for why they should not/will not/ cannot/ will never. I'm easy.

[daggahead]

20. Yeah, the Blue Dogs WOULD have a problem with this, huh? n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

21. I'm sure the OP fully agrees with them on this. nt

[Overseas]

23. Democrats ! Stop this madness! Stay together !

We need to fight back against the right wing supreme court's Citizens' United decision.

No more secret spending on campaigns. We have enough money in politics as it is.

[StarsInHerHair]

24. well Lieberman is against it.......that settles it for me, I'm for it, the critters

don't want the People knowing who they really work for is all

[WatsonT]

26. So what's wrong with disclosing where these companies

who are receiving federal funds are spending those federal funds?

Anyone who opposes this probably is worried about getting hit with corruption charges.