With A Stroke Of His Pen Obama Strikes Back At Citizens United

[ClarkUSA]

On Wednesday it was reported that President Obama was drafting an executive order that would require companies pursuing federal contracts to disclose political contributions that have been secret under the Citizen’s United ruling. A senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Hans A. von Spakovsky, lambasted the proposed executive order saying that, “The draft order tries to interfere with the First Amendment rights of contractors.” Mr. von Spakovsky dutifully made all the right-wing, neo-con arguments including bringing Planned Parenthood and unions into the discussion. The draft order did not exempt any entity from disclosure rules and presents a reasonable requirement on contractors seeking government contracts. Several states have similar “pay to play” laws to prevent businesses from using unlimited donations to buy lucrative state contracts from slimy legislators... The real objection Republicans and the Heritage Foundation have with the order is that it removes the possibility of corporate money influencing government more than it already does. The Citizens’ United ruling was a gift to Republicans who do the bidding of corporations in exchange for campaign contributions and it became obvious after reports that two Supreme Court Justices attended a secret Koch Industries strategy meeting prior to voting to extend free speech rights to corporations just in time for the 2010 midterm campaigns.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-citizens-united

[Ineeda]

1. Awesome. n/t

[woo me with science]

19. This article is from April, and no executive order like this was signed.

This article is from April, and no executive order like this was signed.

that I can find. That was almost seven months ago. Do we have any more recent evidence that this is even on the President's agenda now?

[Vinnie From Indy]

22. This is the 2nd post about this very old story

Why are people posting such an old article and not making it clear that the article is, in fact, more than 6 mos old?

[rurallib]

2. So Repubs will have to pass a bill to change that, right?

Can't wait to hear their arguments.

[TheWraith]

8. Legislation does trump executive order, but I doubt anything will pass. nt

[cui bono]

46. No, because nothing ever came of this. It was a "draft". The OP headline is false.

and the article is from APRIL. He never did this. He was "exploring" it.

[Mimosa]

65. So the OP is untrue?

Yikes.

I expect facts and true information.

[Cigar11]

49. What argument?

It's something Obama is for, and thus the GOP must repeal it.

[great white snark]

3. Whaaaa! Why didn't he do this sooner?

I'm sure a decision like this has to be scrutinized by many people for as much time needed but......I want it all and I wanted it yesterday!

[GOTV]

4. It wasn't campaign season before

[Arkana]

12. So nothing good he does counts because "it's election season"?

I love your logic, I really do.

He doesn't even have an opponent yet. If he really wanted this to have an impact on the GE he'd have done it in June or July 2012, not now.

[GOTV]

38. The poster asked "why now?" I gave him the answer. You failed to understand it.

[cui bono]

72. This doesn't count because he never actually did it. OP is false.

Article is from April and as the article states he was only "drafting" this, he never actually did it. Apparently due to Republican opposition from what I've read in other responses to this thread.

[ClassWarrior]

17. Any port in a storm...

:shrug:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

15. Really? Someone posts a positive accomplishment of the President, and you take it as...

...an opportunity to slam your fellow DUers who only want a better America as quickly as possible?

What could possibly be the purpose of that?

NGU.

[cui bono]

43. When was it accomplished? The article, which is from APRIL, says "draft".

So where is the article that says he actually did it?

[Tippy]

5. Everone wanted Obama to fight and it looks like we are going get what we wanted

I really believe we are going to continue to see more of this...Anyone with half a brain knows this needed doing...but Obama still wanted their co-operation, he knows it's not going to happed sooooooo, here we go...the ride will be bumpy and there may be wrecks along the way...Hang on.....

[polichick]

16. I'm sorry it took him so long to see that he had to play hardball, but...

...better late than never!

[cui bono]

44. NO! This is from APRIL. Apparently nothing ever actually happened.

[slay]

6. What about if these companies donate it to a PAC or something similar -will they still have to tell?

i would hope so or that would be the hugest loophole ever.

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. K & R

:kick:

[Tx4obama]

9. K&R n/t

[babylonsister]

10. Delicious! Recommend!! nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

11. Hans A. von Spakovsky...remember him?

Gonzales's water boy at the Just Us dept during the Attorney Gate firings.
I see he landed on his feet with the ultra right Heritage Foundation.

which reminds me..did Gonzo ever find a job????

[chill_wind]

64. Yeah. He hangs out here at Pajamas Media.

Or at least for the time he posited his story on this:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/leaked-obama-executive-order-intends-to-implement-portions-of-disclose-act/

Which is where the hornets' nest got started among the RW, as far as I can gather.


Per sourcewatch (this may not be current anymore)

"Other luminaries on Pajamas' current roster of editorial board members include:
Tammy Bruce, an author, former president of the National Organization for Women's Los Angeles chapter, host of 'The Tammy Bruce Show,' flag-shipped at KABC-AM (Los Angeles) and heard on more than 160 affiliates, and the personality behind www.tammybruce.com
John Podhoretz, a New York Post columnist, Fox News contributor, and blogger for the National Review Online's 'The Corner'
Richard Fernandez, a Sydney, Australia-based software developer and author of the widely-read 'Belmont Club' blog
Jane Hall, an assistant professor at American University's School of Communication and weekly panelist of Fox News Watch
Dr. Michael Ledeen, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and expert on U.S. foreign policy
Clifford D. May, a veteran news reporter, foreign correspondent and editor at The New York Times, and currently president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism
Tim Blair, an Australia-based blogging pioneer and author of 'Tim Blair'
Marc Cooper, an award-winning author, journalist, and contributor for the The Nation, and author of 'Marc Cooper'
Mark Steyn, a noted, internationally syndicated journalist covering global politics and current affairs
Adam Bellow, a widely-respected Random House editor and son of Nobel Prize-winner Saul Bellow

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pajamas_Media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pajamas_Media


Michael frikken Ledeen :-)

[AtomicKitten]

13. Excellent.

Go on now. Executive Order your ass off.

:hi:

[ClassWarrior]

14. Cool. Thanks Prez!

NGU.

[cui bono]

47. Thanks for what? He didn't do anything. It was a draft and the article is from April. n/t

[Why Syzygy]

18. Decent start.

Much more restraint on the money grabbers is needed. K&R

[flamingdem]

20. Good move nt

[woo me with science]

21. This article is from April and talks about an EO Obama was "reported to be" working on.

Nearly seven month later, I can find no evidence that anything like this was ever produced or signed.

Do we have any more recent evidence that this is even on the President's agenda anymore?

[ClarkUSA]

23. All in good time. Many government contractors are likely hedging their GOP donations...

... which was probably the desired effect. When Pres. Obama does sign it, I'm sure there will be a big deal made out of it, given the populist sentiment which a majority of Americans sympathize with, according to recent polls.

[Vinnie From Indy]

25. As far as I can find, Obama never did sign any order like this.

Your article reference even offers that Obama is EXPLORING the use of an executive order in regard to CU. I don't think he ever did. This story is from April.

[ClarkUSA]

26. I'm sure he will in good time. There will be a public event out of it, too.

The most important thing is the threat of it is probably keeping many government contractors from donating too much to right wing PACs.

[woo me with science]

29. Thank you for finally acknowledging that he did not sign such an order,

and for deleting your nasty comment accusing me of unreccing you and of not bothering to do a search to find a signed order that does not exist.

[ClarkUSA]

30. Your attempt to move the goalpost is a FAIL. Pres. Obama's actions have no doubt had an effect.

When he does sign the executive order, I'll expect you to credit him highly for doing it, since it's such a big deal for you. :sarcasm:

[woo me with science]

32. Oh, Clark. You posted an article giving the impression that such an order is currently

on the President's agenda, when there is no evidence to back that up.

When I challenged you, you posted a photo and a link to somebody's BLOG post, exclaiming in large font that Obama had actually SIGNED such an order. Then you accused me of not bothering to search for the order.

Your own article didn't even say that. Your own article said it was "reported" that he was "drafting" such an order.

A simple search on the White House website shows that no such order was ever signed. This "report" talking about a draft order is from over seven months ago.

Your OP gave people the impression that an order like this was imminent, when it was, in fact, based on an article over seven months old, with no more recent information even to suggest that such a thing is still on the radar.

Maybe it was an honest mistake, but being belligerent about it does not help your case.

I think you owe this community a clarification OP.

[ClarkUSA]

33. lol! That's a false statement. You clearly didn't read the article or are conflating a strawman.

If anything, this OP's facts prove once again that President Obama is on the side of the 99% before there was any OWS.

When he does sign the executive order, I'll expect you to credit him highly for doing it, since it's such a big deal for you. :sarcasm:

Bookmarking for that moment, woo me with science. I hope you won't be moving the goalpost once again or dismissing his actions with some minimizing rhetoric such as, "He should have done it sooner!!"

[woo me with science]

34. Oh, Clark.

You can save the LOL's and the sarcasm. I truly am not interested in fighting with you. These posts were needed, because the date on the article did not make sense along with the breathless implications of the OP. People were reccing based on the impression that there was evidence this had happened or was about to happen.

And as an aside, I honestly believe that you believed the order had been signed. If you hadn't, you wouldn't have posted that link to somebody's blog post saying that, along with the picture of him holding a pen. And you wouldn't have had to edit out your original snark to me about not bothering to look up the order.

I hope he does end up signing the draft. I really do. And you can LOL all you like if it happens; it won't mean a thing to me, because my interest here is not in victory over you. In fact, I wish you *did* have evidence that such an action was imminent or actually being considered. It would be a nice little bone to the 99 percent in a sea of grave disappointments. But your OP needed clarification, Clark. It was misleading, and that's a real shame.

[Gin Blossom]

36. That was surreal. Kudos on your persistance. n/t

[woo me with science]

40. Thank you. nt

[Puglover]

60. Wow.

You have much more patience then I do. My hat is off to you. :thumbsup:

[ruggerson]

95. This is the difference between someone who actually cares about policy

and another whose agenda is political gamesmanship.

Thanks for your perseverance and your commitment to reality.

[woo me with science]

27. You linked to somebody's blog. The article itself says no such thing.

The article itself says only that it was "reported" that he was "drafting" such an executive order.

It does not say it was ever signed.

I have been through the list of executive orders a couple of times, and I don't see anything at all like this.

Clark, save the snark. First, I didn't unrec you; I asked for more information, because your claim is not making sense. Here is the list of Obama's executive orders this year, from the White House website. I even went back as far as January for you.





Executive Orders 2011

October 07, 2011
Executive Order -- Structural Reforms to Improve the Security of Classified Networks and the Responsible Sharing and Safeguarding of Classified Information
October 06, 2011
Executive Order -- Emergency Board to Investigate Disputes Between Certain Railroads
October 03, 2011
Message from the President to Congress Regarding the District of Columbia's 2012 Budget Request Act
September 30, 2011
Executive Order--Continuance of Certain Federal Advisory Committees
September 09, 2011
Executive Order--Developing an Integrated Strategic Counterterrorism Communications Initiative
August 18, 2011
Executive Order--Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce
August 18, 2011
Blocking Property of the Government of Syria and Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to Syria
July 25, 2011
Executive Order--Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations
July 12, 2011
Executive Order--Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska
July 11, 2011
Executive Order--Regulation and Independent Regulatory Agencies
July 06, 2011
Executive Order--Coordinating Policies on Automotive Communities and Workers
June 15, 2011
Executive Order--SelectUSA Initiative
June 13, 2011
Executive Order--Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government
June 09, 2011
Executive Order - Establishment of the White House Rural Council
May 23, 2011
Executive Order Concerning Further Sanctions on Iran
May 18, 2011
Executive Order--Blocking Property of Senior Officials of the Government of Syria
April 29, 2011
Executive Order --Blocking Property of Certain Persons with Respect to Human Rights Abuses in Syria
April 27, 2011
Executive Order--Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service
April 18, 2011
Executive Order -- Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to North Korea
March 08, 2011
Executive Order--Extending Provisions of the International Organization Immunities Act
March 07, 2011
Executive Order--Periodic Review of Individuals Detained at Guantánamo Bay Naval Station Pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force
February 25, 2011
Executive Order--Libya
February 08, 2011
Executive Order -- Establishment of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Advisory Committees
January 31, 2011
Executive Order -- The President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness
January 18, 2011
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review - Executive Order

[woo me with science]

28. Reposted above. nt

[ClarkUSA]

31. The fact Pres. Obama drafted an executive order is enough to make contractors uneasy...

... and very careful about the size of their GOP donations.

[SkyDaddy7]

37. People do not understand political strategy...

Or they simply do not care because bashing Obama is the most important thing right now.

It amazes me that articles reporting Obama getting campaign donations from bundlers with ties to lobbyist makes the headline article on the front page but Elizabeth Warren getting donations directly from lobbyist is a non story! Not just any lobbyist but GE lobbyist...The Company that does not pay any Federal Taxes!

I love Elizabeth Warren & like Obama I trust her to do what is right once elected so I don't care so much as how they raise money as long as it is legal because i know the system is such that if you don't have money you don't win!

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_1026liz_took_donation_from_ge_lobbyist/srvc=home&position=also

[cui bono]

45. We understand disinformation and propaganda.

This has nothing to do with bashing Obama. Where has anyone bashed Obama in this thread?

woo me's posts had everything to do with truth and accuracy. You have a problem with that?

[cui bono]

70. The "fact"? Statistics please. Since it is a "fact" I'm sure you have them.

Or is it a "fact" like the OP heading?

[Whisp]

24. Yaybama!

[progressoid]

35. Has he put any ink in the pen?

[Nancy Waterman]

39. Evidently Republicans went crazy over this

And some Dems also opposed it. Still, I think he should get to it now.
Here is the latest I could find, dated July:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/07/obama-executive-order-koch-eshoo

When the executive order leaked, it was criticized from some unlikely corners. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the number two Democrat in the House, said he opposed the order because the disclosure requirement applied to top executives at contractors. Also in opposition are Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), not to mention a slew of Congressional Republicans and trade groups.

A persistent critic has been Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who has repeatedly offered amendments attempting to prevent any executive order on disclosure of donations. On the House floor Thursday, Cole again offered his own amendment to block donation transparency by contractors, saying the order would inject politics into the contracting process and frighten contractors and their top brass from making campaign contributions. "This would clearly chill the Constitutionally-protected right to donate to political parties, candidates, and causes of one's choice," Cole said. "And I think frankly that's exactly what the proposed executive order is intended to do."

[cui bono]

48. Which explains why he never actually did it. Backed down I guess. n/t

[cui bono]

41. THIS IS FROM APRIL!!! NOTHING EVER HAPPENED!!!

Not to mention this already got posted here yesterday.

Is this the new talking point???

FFS.

[SidDithers]

42. K&R...nt

Sid

[MNBrewer]

50. All talk

No action.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bvar22]

52. This OP is more than a little misleading.

It reports an event that NEVER happened.

I will assume that this was done by mistake,
and that for the sake of honesty and credibility
the OP WILL post a correction.


The article cited by the OP is from last APRIL,
and it clearly states:

"...it was reported that President Obama was drafting an executive order..."


Just last week,
I was "drafting" a design for a low cost space vehicle with a plasma drive that would carry colonists to Mars.
I Struck Back against the high cost of Space Travel!!
Unfortunately, I lost the bar napkin with my original draft. :(



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by an unconfirmed report of a draft for an Executive Order.

Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mimosa]

66. ^LOL^

I wonder if ClarkUSA will start posting under a new name. :7

By their blue links we shall know them. :7

[chill_wind]

53. Why did you omit the date on this story?

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

56. Welcome back!...

:hi:

Sid

[Skittles]

57. WOOT!!!!!!!!!

HOWDY! :hi:

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slipslidingaway]

55. ClarkUSA - Why did you post this yesterday, where did you read or see it?

Trying to understand why this story suddenly resurfaced yesterday.

Thanks.

See this link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2202427&mesg_id=2202427

Anyone else find this strange - what are the chances of this happening?
A 6 month old post from a blog gets posted to two separate forums within 16 minutes, just found that to be weird...

[Skittles]

58. he's - I mean THEY'RE s***ing bricks right now, vowing to be more careful

:rofl:

[slipslidingaway]

59. This had to come from somewhere, maybe here ...

???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2202427&mesg_id=2203209

[NorthCarolina]

68. That's odd, the post revealing the Truth is locked, the misleading ones..not.

Wonder whats up with that...

[cui bono]

69. Yeah, and I alerted on the ones that are flat out wrong but nothing happened

yet the one pointing out the truth was locked and the Mod said to use the alert function and not call out another thread.

But the two threads that make this place look like Faux News are still up.

:eyes:

[slipslidingaway]

75. I alerted as well ...

guess we want to be fair and balanced.

:evilgrin:

[Bobbie Jo]

87. bookmarked.

for unintentional irony, and to provide an example of the hypocritical standard of indigence relating to posts that are "flat out wrong."

Thanks for your help in this effort.

[slipslidingaway]

74. I wonder too, and since we do not know why this story suddenly resurfaced yesterday ...

and cannot discuus it here, something like this will probably happen again.

:(

[NorthCarolina]

76. There must be an underlying purpose, and there seems to be

intent to mislead, so what could the posters have hoped to accomplish? I don't get it.

[slipslidingaway]

77. Only one reason comes to mind, doubt it was the other party ...

undoubtedly we'll see more of this from both sides in the next year, hopefully people will be more careful.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2202427&mesg_id=2202427

[woo me with science]

61. Someone in another DU post said they saw it on another forum, also.

I suspect talking points are being issued and are being repeated. Someone in some office was probably stupid enough to try to use this article as a suggested post.

I got the impression that Clark actually believed that the order had been passed, as he linked to an erroneous (planted?) BLOG post celebrating the passage and snarked at me for not bothering to look up the executive order. He quickly deleted those comments as soon as it became clear that the order never was signed.

Even if some initially repeated it without realizing what they were doing, it is the responses after the truth is exposed that show best who cares about accuracy versus spreading propaganda.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slipslidingaway]

71. Looked around earlier and the only source I came up with was this page - lynkly

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2202427&mesg_id=2203209

lynkly - This is the only current thing I can find - Top trending links on Facebook and Twitter

It may have been the top link for yesterday???
http://lynk.ly/stories/view/1241990

This old story is still listed at the bottom of their homepage today.
http://lynk.ly/

"In a similar fashion, we predict the popularity of stories that are being shared around the world by using social networks. Help us achieve that goal by connecting your Facebook and Twitter feeds with lynkly!
http://lynk.ly/page/about


"Even if some initially repeated it without realizing what they were doing, it is the responses after the truth is exposed that show best who cares about accuracy versus spreading propaganda."

:applause:

This is so true, all one has to do is scan the subject line of replies to see people were pointing out this was old and not true, yet people continued to knr and think it was a wonderful thing.

:crazy:

[Mimosa]

78. The censorship scares me.

Democratic Underground was where I went to to get the TRUTH when Bush was President.

D.U. should not cease to be a reputable source for information just because a Democrat is in the White House.

[woo me with science]

79. Censorship and propaganda are very disturbing.

I agree with you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2202621

[NorthCarolina]

67. Since the OP is false and misleading, please speculate on it's "Purpose"

I'm curious as to the intent.

[cui bono]

73. As with everything one reads, one must consider the source. n/t

[NorthCarolina]

80. ClarkUSA, did you intentionally attempt to mislead fellow DU'ers with this OP?

I am curious as to your reason for posting it as if (1) it was current, and (2) that it actually happened...which it didn't. What was/is your motivation, and what did you hope to accomplish?

[MNBrewer]

83. How's that draft coming, President Obama? Finished yet?

[Puglover]

81. This is great!

A misleading post from 6 months ago has 80 recs in this forum. :rofl:

[NorthCarolina]

82. "Great", or simply par for the course? nt

[bvar22]

84. Anyone can make a mistake.

I expect any member of our community to post a correction/apology after mistakenly posting demonstrably false information.





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ClarkUSA]

85. Yawn. The OP is a FACT which many ignored at the time. Any outrage is a red herring.

In fact, a very similar OP in GD got even more recs. :)

[MNBrewer]

100. Yet this "fact" has no effect, in reality.

I'm sure it's also true that he had a bowel movement that day, yet it changed nothing.

[Bobbie Jo]

86. bookmarked.

This "expectation" should apply across the board, no?

[bvar22]

88. Absolutely!

We are in agreement on three items.
1) The information presented by the OP is demonstrably false,
and it is fitting & proper to point this out.

2)Everyone should be held to the same standard.

On Edit:
3)Anyone can make a mistake.
Adults are not afraid to admit mistakes & correct them.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Number23]

89. I am in awe of the sheer amount of PANIC this OP inspired

As has been breathlessly posted about 16 times in this thread, this article is 6 months old. And yet, folks just keep posting and kicking the thread in their determination to prove that it's ALL LIESS!!!one

It appears that a draft was created. Republicans as expected, pushed back hard. Not sure what happened after that though this piece says it was still being worked on as late as July. http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/21/an-executive-order-in-the-old-chicago-tradition/

Whatever the case, the wailing and flailing over this is ridiculous. If it's an old article, people could have just posted that and kept going. But I guess the temptation to deny that this was an issue that the president was even working on was too great for some. Oh well, at least you got 69 recs out of all of that screeching.

[bvar22]

91. I know what you mean!

The dissemination and propagation of bogus, misleading, or outright false information at DU is such a little thing.
Why would anyone get their panties in a twist? :shrug:
Some people just need to get a life!
:toast:

[Number23]

93. Yeah! And you DEFINITELY should know about all of that

[dsc]

92. The OP is a total lie

To post a thread which basicaly states that the President signed an executive order, which he didn't sign, is plain old fashioned lying. This isn't about Obama it is about the OP writer.

[Number23]

94. The OP is only a lie to those who cannot read

It doesn't say that the president signed an EO. It says that the president created a draft which is apparently exactly what happened.

[dsc]

96. The clear implication is he did so this week

which is a lie. He did it months ago. I certainly took it to mean he had decided to really issue the order he had thought about issuing months ago. No date is supplied in the OP. Anyone reading that OP was left with the clear impression that on Wednesday, October 26, 2011 Obama drafted this order. Not on some Wed in March. Oh, and BTW the author of the OP claimed that there was such a signed order until someone literally found and printed the title of every single order issued this year.

[Number23]

97. As you just proved so beautifully again,

the OP was only a "lie" to those who cannot read. The first thing I do whenever I see an OP is check the source and the date.

It is clear on the link that it was from April. It's also clear that that the article was only in reference to a draft.

[dsc]

98. He should have posted the date

or edited the quote (which he did for his benefit by highlighting certain passages). He could have avoided the whole mess by changing Wednesday to April whatever. Instead he posted a seven month old article and then told actual lies as opposed to lies of ommission later in the thread. I notice you don't address that conduct. I can understand why.

[Number23]

99. Could have, should have.

I am sure many, many people here feel that many of your posts "could have" been done differently as well

Hopefully, we're now done with this pointless conversation.

[Marnie]

90. As long as the order is simply requiring disclosure and not

using that information to determine who gets the contracts.

However does the order allow public disclosure or is the information secret?
Other wise the order will have the opposite effect that we want it to have.