Obama Administration Wants Political Litmus Test For Those Bidding On Government Contracts

Transparency isn’t always motivated by the purest of intentions. “As part of an application for a government contract, the White House wants to require the company to report all the company’s political activity,” writes Tim Carney. “The administration presents this as a way to increase transparency. It strikes me as a way to further politicize the process of government contracts.”

From The Hill:

If implemented, the order would have a company bidding for a federal contract disclose their contributions to parties and candidates as well as donations to “third party entities” that spend their funds on “independent expenditures and electioneering communications,” according to a copy of the draft order obtained by The Hill.

The draft order seems geared toward non-profit groups that spent vast sums campaigning in the last election without disclosing their donors. Contributions to parties and candidates are already covered by Federal Election Commission rules, but donations to non-profit groups are not.

Transparency is, obviously, important. But this smacks of a political litmus test. Before a given administration approves your bid you have to disclose who you’ve been supporting politically? Why should politics matter for the bidding process?

It seems to me that the only factors that should matter should be things like competence and cost. Can they deliver on their bid, and is their bid cost effective. Where the company may stand politically is irrelevant.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • robert108

    It’s the Chicago Way; gangster govt.

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    President Bar-aka Usanincompoop Obamovsky

  • 2hotel9

    Not a problem!! Simply show that your company is Union and this requirement will vanish. Oh, yea, got to pay the bribe, too, Union rules and whatnot.

  • borborygmi

    I would think that this would be a benefit for Conservatives and Liberals. It would be easy to trace preferential treatment.

    • JustRuss

      What if conservative companies just happen to come in with better bids and have a better work history. The left will scream about fairness in the same way they do about conservative talk radio.

      It isn’t our fault we’re better than you at some things, why do you insist on punishing us rather than making yourselves better?

  • yy4u2

    Let the company that can do the best job for a fair price get the bid. I’d much rather see them check out their previous work and referrals than to see who they may have given a campaign donation to or if they are gender/race compliant.

  • robert108

    IMO, it’s a violation of the First Amendment, especially with this hyperpartisan administration.

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    President Obama is becoming more gop everyday!

    • 2hotel9

      Really? When did a Republican Admin do this, whinny lying c*nt?

    • borborygmi

      I know. He is killing all sorts of Muslims.

      • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

        Yeah, he’s winning the war on terror.
        Too bad bush (who had bin Laden offered to him on a silver platter) chose to cut and run in Tora Bora to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on Sept. 11.
        If bush had killed bin Laden, he would have been hailed as the greatest pres ever.

        I can’t wait for the deathers to get up a full head of santorum and really make some noise.
        Perhaps later today on the Pox?