Wilson County News
Commentaries header
Wilson County News • 1012 C St • Floresville • TX • 78114 • Ph: 830-216-4519 • Fax: 830-393-3219 • Email:
Friday, Apr 18, 2014
Login
Not a subscriber? Click here.
Are you a WCN subscriber?
Set up your password.

 
E-Mail
Password
  Remember me
 
  Forgot password?
La Vernia News
Google
Google

Preview the Paper
Preview this week's Paper

Commentaries

Obama's Executive Order and the First Amendmen




E-Mail this Story to a Friend
Print this Story

Disclaimer:
The author of this entry is responsible for this content, which is not edited by the Wilson County News or wilsoncountynews.com.
August 9, 2011 | 1397 views | 9 comments

By Daniel Hanson

The Obama administration has drafted a new, little-noticed executive order that would plainly stifle free speech. The “Disclosure of Political Spending by Government Contractors” order is still a draft, but if the administration has its way, the order will be in full force soon.

Premised on the idea that sunlight disinfects, President Obama’s executive order would require all bidders for federal contracts to disclose all financial contributions to candidates standing for election. The order includes all corporate contributions and all personal giving in excess of $5,000 by officers and directors of corporations concerned, and it also requires the disclosure of contributions made to third-party groups like the National Rifle Association or the Center for American Progress. The order takes direct aim at the $530 billion in federal contracts that will be issued in 2012, and it represents the latest move in a series of tactics designed to drag the Supreme Court’s defense of the First Amendment in the Citizens United decision through the mud.

The Court’s decision, announced in 2009, struck down parts of the McCain-Feingold Act that prohibited corporations and unions from broadcasting on behalf of candidates close to a primary. The move sparked a public feud between President Obama and the Court, as Obama (in an infamous moment) chose his State of the Union Address in 2010 to openly criticize the ruling. Reacting instinctively, Associate Justice Samuel Alito responded to Obama’s factually incorrect criticism by mouthing the words “not true” in a very public way.

The Court, of course, was acting to defend free speech from the muzzle of government regulation, even if that regulation was proscribed in the name of openness and transparency. Affirming the First Amendment, the Court sided with the Founding Fathers, who hotly rejected the idea of disclosure on all political communication. Indeed, the pseudonym “Publius” was employed by Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay as a way to protect themselves as they defended the passage of the new Constitution in The Federalist Papers, and similar nom de plume moves came with such high-profile public debates as Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, signed “Written by an Englishman,” and a cabinet debate between Hamilton and Madison under the names “Pacificus” and “Helvidius.”

Anonymity is an important cornerstone to American politics because it insulates the speaker from reprisal by the government or another disgruntled group in the face of political criticism. Additionally, providing the speaker with anonymity allows the argument to stand on its own merits, removing the caustic ad hominem barbs often attached to political discourse. The provision of anonymity has a rich heritage as, in the words of the Court, “a shield from the tyranny of the majority.”

This shield remains just as important in the digital era. In the wake of the Proposition 8 debates in California, major financial supporters of Prop 8 were routinely peppered with death threats, vandalism, and other intimidation tactics. Property was defaced, certain supporters were fired from their jobs, and some religious organizations even received envelopes containing white powder. The intimidation tactics were employed after the disclosure of the names, address, and employers of Prop 8 donors, providing would-be assailants with the data to construct a literal roadmap for violence.

President Obama rejects the condition of anonymity on political speech as a means of advancing controversial views, except (apparently) when it benefits his own party. In objecting to Citizens United, the president decried the donations of anonymous corporate-backed super-PACs to candidates, but he hasn’t objected to the contributions of Majority PAC or American Bridge 21st Century--both of whom have substantial anonymous donor bases--to his reelection efforts in the West. Tellingly, his new order also does not require unions to disclose their political contributions.

Now President Obama appears to want to institutionalize the spoils system by making political affiliation part of the bidding process on federal contracts. Rather than awarding the contracts to the companies that provide the best combination of prices and services, the contracts may flow to political allies. These new disclosure requirements could turn discussions about cost and efficiency into purely political calculations by allowing bureaucrats to award contracts exclusively to their followers. Moreover, the public dissemination of this information on data.gov, as proposed by the order, would allow for violent backlashes by political opponents.

Anonymous speech has been protected by the First Amendment and affirmed by the Supreme Court. By allowing the White House to adjudicate federal contracts based on political donations, President Obama is jeopardizing a long history of valuable political anonymity in this country. Ironically, Obama warned that the Citizens United decision “strikes at democracy itself.” The First Amendment is a vital part of that democracy.

Daniel Hanson is a 2011 graduate of Grove City College and a former student research fellow with The Center for Vision & Values.
 
« Previous Blog Entry (August 6, 2011)
 


Your Opinions and Comments
 
4th Generation Texan  
Sutherland Springs  
August 16, 2011 8:54am
 
 
"Rock N"...But, what if the President gets elected for another 4 year term...that would mean that we would have an illegal, devisive, unfair policy in place for ... Read More Read More
 
 
Rock'n chair Rambler  
Over Taxed, TX  
August 16, 2011 8:31am
 
 
The fortunate thing about Executive Orders is that the next "Executiv"e can simply reverse/replace them with another one. heh heh
 
 
4th Generation Texan  
Sutherland Springs  
August 13, 2011 6:52pm
 
 
This is not something new and secretive.. If you watch Fox news you would have heard this reported and heard a debate on the merits that included opponents and proponents....the ... Read More Read More
 
 
Alvin Charmaine  
August 11, 2011 6:28pm
 
 
The people in dry tank have concluded that political donations are political... Duh.

They're obviously responding to mitt romney's friends opening a company, donating ... Read More Read More
 
 
The Marcelina Muse  
Dry Tank, TX  
August 10, 2011 1:04pm
 
 
Oh yeh. This has nothing at all to do with politics. Just inproving government contract letting. Even people from Dry Tank know that.
 
 
Facts only please  
TX  
August 9, 2011 12:39pm
 
 
This is a great thing, having to deal with contractors in the military, I wish this order was in place YEARS ago.
 
 
Disgusted Taxpayer  
La Vernia  
August 9, 2011 12:13pm
 
 
How many more days do we have to endure this idiot?

He should take LBJ's position of 1968 and announce that he will not run in 2012. What a blessed idea.
 
 
Publius Valerius Publicola  
Rome, Tx.  
August 9, 2011 10:41am
 
 
Unfortunately our president is a Chicago trained politico. The Constitution seems insignificant to him.
 
 
Elaine K.  
Floresville  
August 9, 2011 9:27am
 
 
New column posted.
 

Share your comment or opinion on this story!


You must be logged in to post comments:



Other Commentaries


Commentaries
Commentaries page govtrack.us
Commentaries who represents me?
 
^Top
  Copyright © 2014 Wilson County News. All rights reserved. Web development by Drewa Designs.
^Top