Mandatory Disclosure Would Impose Politics On Federal Procurement Choices

Bill Smith

Dr. Bill Smith, Editor: As a former Federal Acquisitions Contracting Officer, the last thing I would wish to know or to consider is information about where and to whom the owners, executives or employees of a business or company donated campaign money.  It is none of my business.   The public does not need others especially elected or appointed politicians and their staff - including the President, knowing this type information and then pressuring contracting officers or their agencies to award contracts to contractors based on politics.

Contracting Officers are to determine contract awards based on price and the contractor's ability to meet the contract's technical specifications. It is presently illegal for members of the White House, Congress or any one in an agency to put political pressure on a Contracting Officer to sway the decision of the award of the contract to a particular contractor or away from a particular contractor.

Of Course, I admit that in the past some honorable contracting officers may have been removed or relocated to other offices or agency because they refused to bend to political or organizational pressure to violate Federal Acquisition Regulations and / or Federal Contract Law. In review of the following article by the Wall Street Journal, one should ask what is the White House doing proposing an Executive Order which in fact codifies that Chicago style corruption to be implemented from the White House and through all levels of Federal Government acquisitions. It is evident that someone is seeking to drag the Administration down a path which will be both destructive to the White House and to the reputation of the Federal Government as a whole.

[Dr. Smith is a retired Air Force Officer and former Contracting Officer who worked at several levels of government acquisitions from the basic construction, utilities, services and supplies needed to support military aircraft, ICBM missiles and Air Force base operations to being the Director of Acquisition of the former $2.2 billion European F-16 Aircraft Co-production program with additional oversight of all DOD contract in plants in four European countries. He Was a former senior DOD Acquisitions Contracts instructor with AFIT and ALMC. After retiring from the military, he was a graduate professor teaching acquisitions and procurement courses. He is a National Contracts Management Assoc. Fellow and a Certified Cost Analyst.]
-------------------------
The Wall Street Journal has an excellent editorial today on the Obama administration’s latest plans to circumvent Congress by implementing parts of the DISCLOSE Act via executive order, which was first uncovered by former FEC Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky last week.

The WSJ editors write, “The order would implement parts of last year’s Disclose Act, which failed to pass Congress but was a favorite of Democrats because it would deter political contributions by business after last year’s Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision. . . . The draft of the executive order describes the rule’s purpose as a way to ensure the federal contracting system is free from the influence of ‘political activity or political favoritism.’ Hmmm. Last we checked, government contractors were already required to disclose contributions to candidates. The new twist here is the disclosure of donations to independent groups, a category in which conservatives outspent liberals for the first time in the last election cycle.”

“And what do you know,” the editors point out.  “The draft order doesn’t cover federal employee labor unions, the Democratic allies whose free speech rights were recognized alongside corporations in Citizens United. Nor do the disclosure requirements extend to recipients of federal grants, which often run into the millions of dollars. These donees are usually Democrats too.”

Further, they explain, “Mandatory disclosure would impose politics on federal procurement choices as never before. . . . Disclosure may sound nice, but the real point is to put companies on notice that their political contributions will have, well, consequences. When the Disclose Act was before Congress, New York Democrat and co-sponsor Chuck Schumer made clear the bill was designed to ‘embarrass companies’ out of exercising the rights recognized in Citizens United. ‘The deterrent effect should not be underestimated,’ he said.”

As the editors conclude, “The point of all this is to discourage political speech by certain speakers. Citizens United was a landmark victory for liberty because it blew a huge hole in the architecture of campaign finance limits that had increasingly restricted political speech. Having failed to overrule Citizens United in Congress, Democrats now want to do it via executive diktat.”

Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had a similar reaction last week, saying, “Democracy is compromised when individuals and small businesses fear reprisal, or expect favor from the federal government as a result of their political associations.  So recent press reports about an unprecedented draft Executive Order raise troubling concerns about an effort to silence or intimidate political adversaries’ speech through the government contracting system. If true, the proposed effort would represent an outrageous and anti-democratic abuse of executive branch authority. No administration should use the federal contracting system for campaign purposes.”

---

Tags: White House, Executive Order, government procurement, disclose procedures, free speech, contracting officers, Federal Acquisition Regulation, Federal Contract Law, Chicago style corruption, Dr. Bill Smith To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!