Who Needs Congress?
Last year Congress tried to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which I thought was against the spirit of the First Amendment. It was mostly about burdening corporations' free speech. (I'd link to my original post if I could find it.) It failed to pass.
But no matter. Obama is considering an executive order that'll do the job. It'll require companies (but not unions, I believe) to disclose their political activities before they're awarded contracts. The administration claims this is in the name of transparency, but what's really transparent is their attempt to intimidate political enemies.
PS For those of you who love government acronyms, such as the USA PATRIOT act (for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"), let me disclose what DISCLOSE stands for: "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections." They must stay up nights working on these.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:11 AM
4 Comments:
So before getting a government contract, a corporation has to disclose the contributions it made to those who influence the granting of such cotracts.
Shakes the very foundation of crony capitalism
Yes, the more the the biggest doler out of money (not that it makes the money, it just takes it) can make sure that those who speak out in ways it doesn't like feel threatened, the safer we are. The more we have government by thuggery, the better I feel.
It's insulting enough to Obama thinks he can act like a thug. Worse is people like anonymous above who will apologize for his crap and pretend he's doing us a favor. Reminds me of when politicians sic the IRS on their enemies and then people say hey, they weren't paying their taxes, they deserve it. Except this is worse, since Obama is leaning on people for practicing their constitutional rights.
It's not likely Anonymous is speaking in good faith. The only test is whether it's Obama or Bush, or whoever he puts into his good and bad boxes.
Post a Comment
<< Home