What constitutes a clear and present danger? Would it be an Administration which moves us ever closer to financial disaster without any apparent plan to avoid it? Would it be an Administration that moves us ever closer to socialism? What about an Administration that proposes to take away fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution? I think all three constitute a clear and present danger.
I had intended to post a paper on another issue today until the Heritage Foundation brought to my attention a scandalous and insidious plan by the Obama Administration. Interestingly, the least transparent Administration in memory has pursued this criminal act in the name of transparency.
The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees to all Americans the right of free speech. The Administration wants to take it away.
In order to prevent inappropriate influence on the awarding of federal contracts, those companies seeking such contracts are completely barred from making contributions to political parties, candidates for public office or any person for any political purpose. Violations are subject to prosecutions. While direct contributions from corporations to candidates continues to be prohibited, the Supreme Court in Citizens United v FEC, struck down limitations on corporate involvement in independent political broadcasts. President Obama severely criticized the decision, even during his State of the Union while the members of the Supreme Court sat a few feet away. In the House and Senate, the DISCLOSE Act was introduced by Democrat representatives in an effort to save the Union. It was defeated in the Senate. Not surprisingly, the legislation was supported by labor which retained its rights to participate in the political process. It was opposed by the business community.
Even though the Supreme Court and the Congress dealt with the rights of corporations, the Administration is circulating a draft Executive Order which not only seeks to counter the other branches of government, it seeks to go dramatically further. The Executive Order would require not only companies seeking federal contracts to disclose political contributions, even those legal under the law, it would require disclosure from officers and directors of the companies of personal political activity, not associated with the companies. Not only it this intended to intimidate corporations and their officers and directors who might want to engage in the political process, it is a clear violation of their First Amendment rights. Inasmuch as the disclosure must be made by the companies, the companies would have to gather personal information from their directors and officers.
These requirements would not apply to labor unions which negotiate very large contacts with the government and would not apply to those who receive federal grants. One does not need to back too far to remember ACORN which sought to subvert the election process using government funds. What about them? When asked about this draft Executive Order, the White House said it was intended to further transparency in government and would allow the taxpayers to “know where his or her money is going.” What the White House failed to mention is that the “money” being disclosed is not the taxpayer’s money. This is money that has been earned by individuals for services performed. It is their money.
If the government can require that certain people must report their personal participation in the political process to the government to make the federal contract process more transparent, what else might they do? Which of our rights is next?
For students of history, one not need to look too far in the past to remember when people saw proposed changes in the scope of their government and said it did not seem too much of an imposition. When their liberties were reduced a little at a time, they said it probably was good because it would help protect their security. When their fundamental rights were infringed, they began to object but they found it was too late.
Thomas Jefferson said “Constant Vigilance is the Price of Liberty.” We should spend more time listening to him. It would not hurt to be a member of the Heritage Foundation and listen to them as well.
www.WeThePeopleBlog.net
comments@wethepeopleblog.net
