US Chamber Freaks Out Over Obama Proposal Requiring Govt Contractors To Disclose Campaign Spending

[marmar]

AlterNet / By Robert Weissman

US Chamber Freaks Out Over Modest Obama Proposal That Would Require Gov't Contractors To Disclose Campaign Spending
It's a good rule of thumb: If the Chamber is whipped up about something, there's probably good reason for the public to back whatever has sent them into fits.

May 9, 2011 |


It's a good rule of thumb: If the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- the trade association for large corporations -- is whipped up about something, there's probably good reason for the public to strongly back whatever has sent the Chamber into fits.

Well, the Chamber is apoplectic over a modest Obama administration proposed executive order that would require government contractors to reveal all of their campaign-related spending.

This is a case where the rule of thumb works. The proposed executive order would provide important information about campaign spending by large corporations, and work to reduce the likelihood that contracts are provided as payback for campaign expenditures. You can urge the administration to stand up to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce by signing the petition here.

The U.S. Chamber is of course no stranger to using exaggerated rhetoric to advance its positions. But its opposition to the Executive Order is astounding even by the standards of the Chamber. ..............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/news/150887/us_chamber_freaks_out_over_modest_obama_proposal_that_would_require_gov%27t_contractors_to_disclose_campaign_spending/

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Champion Jack]

5. +1,000,000,000

[zbdent]

2. Hey ... if the unions have to do it ...

why not the "union" of businesses?

[MrModerate]

3. Curious. My company -- a big one, and privately owned . . .

Nevertheless reveals its political donations down to the last dollar. And, despite a fairly Republican senior management team (those who are citizens, anyway), the donations are reliably ~50-50 for 'Licans and Dems.

So, unless a company is engaged in buying politicians by the carload, they should have no objection to revealing their donations.

Right?

[nonperson]

4. Expose these blood suckers to daylight

I am allowed to say "blood sucker", right?

[Jefferson23]

6. Greed that is allowed. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

7. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, marmar.

[MasonJar]

8. No one is forcing any company to take a government contract.

[the_chinuk]

9. If the USCC is for it, it's against me. Therefore, I am against them. k/r

What, they think just because they're huge that people can't be against them?

Well, in their version of America, maybe.

[patrice]

10. K&RRRRRRRR~