Flawed Logic, Extraordinary Irony Abound in Lobbyists' Arguments Against Contractor Disclosure Directive

By BEN FREEMAN

On Tuesday, the American League of Lobbyists (ALL) sent an almost-laughable letter to the White House requesting that President Obama withdraw the draft executive order (EO) that would require bidders on federal contracts to disclose their political contributions and voicing their support of House Amendment No. 27, offered by Congressman Tom Cole (R-OK) to the FY 2012 Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 1540). The lobbyists are concerned that "The Draft Order would inhibit one of the most vital tools in the advocate's arsenal by creating a fear of retribution for political donations."

In spite of the absurdity of the idea that lobbyists must be able to give money in secret to do their jobs, Ryan J. Reilly of TPM Muckraker recently opined that contractors and their advocates are dominating the messaging war surrounding the EO. But the central message from opponents of the EO—that more disclosure and transparency will allow the Obama administration to pick and choose contractors based upon political contributions—is simply not credible.

To turn the tables in this messaging war and to expand upon POGO's arguments in support of the EO, here are three reasons why this rationale and the rhetoric used to attempt to defeat the EO are flawed and extraordinarily ironic:

Contractor Contributions Go to Opponents of the EO

Those who resist disclosure have a vested interest in ensuring that the American public is unaware of the undue influence they garner through contributions. If contributions are unrelated to the awarding of contracts, there should be no cause for alarm when contractors are asked to provide this information to the public. Not coincidentally, the businesses receiving these contracts, the lobbyists securing the contracts, and the Representatives receiving contributions from these contractors are the very same groups aggressively fighting disclosure.

According to campaign contribution data from the Center for Responsive Politics, Rep. Cole, who sponsored the amendment that would effectively nullify the draft EO, has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from government contractors since joining the House. Specific examples include the $23,000 he received from the Defense/Aerospace sector in 2010 and the $28,500 he's received during his five House elections from prominent defense contractor BAE Systems, which would be required to disclose all contributions if the EO were to go into force. Cole has also received more than $166,000 from lobbyists for his five House elections.

The ties between Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), sponsor of the draft bill that is expected to be introduced in the Senate to nullify the EO, and major government contractors are even greater. During her 2002 and 2008 elections, her second largest donor was General Dynamics, one of the most prominent government contractors, whose employees, political action committee (PAC), and affiliates gave her nearly $100,000. Raytheon, another massive defense contractor, also made her top ten donor list with total contributions exceeding $34,000.

The ALL would undoubtedly contend that these contributions in no way influenced the decision of these Representatives to oppose the EO. But ironically, ALL's own former two-term president Wright Andrews concedes in an interview with the Center for Responsive Politics that "access is more available to those who give a lot of money and raise a lot of money. Access then puts you much more in the game. It is power. It does translate into ability to get things done." This is precisely why it is vital for the public to know how contractors are using contributions to secure contracts.

Disclosure ≠ Politicization

POGO, along with more than 30 other pro-transparency groups, signed a letter on May 4^th supporting the EO, which noted that "In response to numerous contracting scandals, more than a dozen states have imposed specific campaign finance disclosure requirements on government contractors." According to a report by Perkins Cole, LLP, disclosure laws comparable to those in the draft EO exist in California, Maryland, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, and many more states explicitly ban contributions from government contractors and their affiliates. There is no evidence that these disclosure requirements have in any fashion politicized contractor selection in these states. Similarly, many federal government contractors are already required to disclose some of their campaign finance activities, including contributions reported to the Federal Election Commission. Once again, there is no evidence that these disclosure requirements have politicized procurement officials. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the draft EO would, in any way, increase politicization of contractor selection.

Citizens United Actually Supports Disclosure of Donors

Opponents of the EO have also attempted to use the Citizens United decision to bolster their case against transparency. In their letter to the President, the ALL write, "the ability to voice a political position using financial resources has been preserved by our nations [sic] deliberative and judicial branches, your Executive Order, if enacted, would undermine that preservation." This is a cursory and incomplete understanding of the Citizens United decision. Ironically, this same decision that opened the door for virtually unlimited money to pour into the campaign finance process also makes a compelling argument for disclosure of that information. According to the Majority Opinion, "Disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages."

Why POGO Supports the EO

The intent of the draft executive order is not to allow contracts to be granted based upon political contributions. In fact, just the opposite is true. Procurement officials cannot accept political contributions from contractors—those opposing the EO can and do. Opposition to the EO is predicated upon self-interest, not the national interest. Disclosure allows the public to identify when the decisions of government are being driven by campaign contributions and successful monitoring of contractors' use of contributions to influence selection decisions will be impossible without implementing the EO. By making contractor contribution information publicly available, anyone with a suspicion of quid pro quo can immediately look into the issue to determine if a contract was awarded unjustly. Full disclosure works to guarantee that contracts are awarded based upon merit not money.

Ben Freeman is POGO's National Security Fellow.

Image: wallyg

Comments

[Alfred Sasiadek]

When an individual speaks you know who is speaking. When a corporation speaks (through the use of money)you should also be able to know who is speaking. When a CEO speaks in person for a corporation you also know who (the corporation) is speaking. I support the EO and all full disclosure laws.

[Jonathan]

Companies that make the majority of their revenue from government contracts should not be able to give political contributions the government! If contractors are allowed to make political contributions, why not government agencies? Why should contractors be able to use our money to shape the government the way they want? Not only is this common sense, but it addresses the argument that Obama may use the contribution information to reward the contractors.

[Ken in Kent]

Politicians would never punish companies who donate to their political opponents. No group would ever start a campaign to boycott/intimidate those who support or oppose the wrong cause.

If full disclosure should be the norm, lets eliminate the secret ballot. Employees of government contractors might be voting for their own gain.

Or should employees of government contractors have the same right of privacy enjoyed by all Americans. The causes and politicians they support is none of the government's business.