United Liberty
Obama to ignore Congress, making parts of the DISCLOSE Act policy
Mon, 05/09/2011 - 11:20am | posted by Jason Pye
President Barack Obama and Democrats were not able to get the DISCLOSE Act passed in a legitmate manner, through through constitutional means of passing legislation through the Congress. According to Conn Carroll at the Washington Examiner, Obama is now planning to enact some provisions of bill through an Executive Order, essentially making policy without consent or approval from our legislative body:
According to Republican sources on the Hill, President Obama may be days away from signing an Executive Order that would make many provisions of the failed DISCLOSE Act law by fiat. As we reported last month, the order would require all companies that sign contracts with the federal government to report on the personal political activities of their officers and directors.
The White House claims the EO would make the federal government more transparent. But a quick look at who Obama chose to exempt from the EO shows this is false: unions that sign collective bargaining contracts with the federal government would be exempt from the “disclosure” requirements. The clear intent of this bill is to suppress speech and punish Obama’s enemies.
According to a Congressional Research Service review of Executive Orders over the last 40 years, no White House has ever issued an EO dealing with campaign finance. Signing the DISCLOSE Act EO would be an unprecedented power grab by Obama.
The DISCLOSE Act was a response to the Citizens United decision, a victory for political speech in the wake of McCain-Feingold. Obama’s choosing to exempt unions is telling, though not surprising considering his administration has carried their water many times during his term; including most recently the National Labor Relations Board targeting Boeing for doing nothing more than making a common sense business decision.
I realize this isn’t the first time that a president has used an Executive Order to make laws without the consent of Congress, but each time it happens, it’s a breach of the Constitution and the separation of powers contained there-in.
Why not disclosure and transparency? Why would the contributors to PACs want to conceal their identities? What, are they ashamed? Aren’t they proud to endorse a candidate or a cause?
I thought transparency was supposed to be a good thing…..
And this is not a victory for free speech.
Some CEO or board members make a decision for the hundreds or perhaps thousands of employees/shareholders of a company, and they have no say in the matter of which causes or candidates the money goes to, stifling their free speech.
Post new comment