Should a draft presidential Executive Order become final, government contracting companies and their executives will be forced to operate under new rules to which no other citizens or class of citizens are subjected.
The draft order requires all bidders for federal contracts to include in their bids a list of all political contributions made by the company and its senior executives, including contributions to any third-party organizations that in turn may make campaign contributions or launch political ads. According to the draft, the disclosure requirements are necessary to ensure the separation of politics from the procurement process.
The whole idea is absurd.
First, any and all PAC or individual contributions to candidates are already disclosed through two fully searchable, public databases. Thus, if the administration believes this information is at all relevant to the procurement process, the information is readily accessible. But then again, contracting officers don’t look for it precisely because they are trained--and appropriately so--to keep politics out of the merit-based, competitive process. Thus, ironically, the administration’s proposal would be injecting politics into the process, when its stated goal is precisely the opposite.
As for contributions to third-party political organizations, such as MoveOn.org or Citizens United, how could an individual contribution be a tool to influence a procurement? Individual contributors to these organizations are not disclosed. So what possible benefit could come from disclosing them as part of the source selection process, other than opening the door to the very kind of abuses we all agree must be avoided?
Further, if issued, the draft order would put contractors and their senior employees in a unique class since no other organizations or citizens are required to make such disclosures, even when their interests are directly tied to important government decisions. Grantees receiving federal funds would not be covered. Nor would unions (federal or otherwise) that are heavily involved in a wide array of critical policy decisions; or other business organizations; or federal employees. Of course, we are not advocating that they should be covered,--but neither should contractors.
It’s not clear what is driving the administration to consider such a proposal, but what is clear is that such a rule would be legally dubious, counterintuitive and counterproductive. Let’s hope this draft goes into the circular file.
