Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Happening now a debate on Capitol Hill over where to draw the line on transparency.
There's a draft executive order by the White House that proposes any government contractors from those who supply paper towels to our.
-- jets we'll have to disclose their political contributions when they compete for a bit.
Now some say this is greater transparency at work others say.
It will politicize the process and bids will essentially be bought one -- that the folks with that criticism.
Congressman airline -- California he's chairman of the house committee.
On oversight and government reform.
The congressman I'm looking at when headline here that says social security and Medicare.
Are gonna rent out their -- are gonna run average -- when he for we -- the debt ceiling -- spending we've all these big issues this is -- a draft.
Why are you -- taking the time to focus so much attention on this.
Well because it's leaked draft executive order.
Would have in fact been issued and we've been stuck within -- subject only the court challenge if we have been fortunate enough to see that this administration was trying to do.
If you will the worst part.
Of the the disclose act.
By executive order and understand it's not about transparency it's about privacy.
It's not about what government's right to know is in fact.
Their record their witness from OMB said they had absolutely no reason whatsoever to need this information in any way shape performing contract being.
They just thought transparency was good.
And understand this is not political contributions.
What they're ordering in this is for your charity contributions your 501 -- and 501 C three and -- for contributions.
To be exposed it.
Contributions that may or may not be used at some point for political activity.
None of which goes directly to candidates but certainly you could chill this if -- the Obama administration.
And union contributions -- private well private contributions are public.
Interesting how persistent there's critics what you're doing taking a look at this one of them has to be -- Cummings.
I he also sits on the house committee on oversight and government reform here's what he had to say to -- this week.
Second argument made by the opponents is that contacting officers might.
Review political contributions in order to reward allies -- -- -- dispose.
By awarding or withholding government contracts.
Again this could happen now an apparent law.
And Paris -- that he says really there's there's there's no difference.
-- he's he's he's he's both factually incorrect and disingenuous in this case first of all it's not about contracting officers.
It's about a political appointees who also participate in this and often look over the shoulder of these.
Skilled professionals and make suggestions to -- or change things so it is about the political structure.
Also what he says people -- look at it we're not talking about what's already publicly available because it's publicly available.
What we're talking about is if you're an officer or director or key person in a company even if you're only supplying.
Strawberries for the troops to -- They are gonna wanna know all your contributions to your trade association.
And in fact to.
-- gay liberation movements or national right to life.
And you could imagine how much -- if you see a pattern that if you give to the right you don't get contracts.
And you get to the left you get contract pretty quickly people would understand -- pay to play and that's what this was all of.
I'll -- DC is a privacy issue for example right now how do we know that the contracts that are being rewarded at this time.
Are not happening because -- of certain contributions.
If we don't have this type of oversight you're arguing that.
If this had the bombers exactly necessarily give us the information to know -- to accept or deny were not that were not gonna really.
Get a lot from that what's being disclosed but how do we know right now -- citizens that those people that are getting these offices are getting these contracts.
Aren't being rewarded because they are big.
Well first of all it's very clear that this administration is rewarding deliberately people that they know we're big donors.
But we're talking about is an enemy's list but nixonian enemies list.
Because now what they're going to do is they're going to force people who give to entities that do not in fact give to the candidates for against.
But may in fact run ads -- something about them.
Remember that's that's information that today.
Separate those those lists to come out there are contribution reporting.
But here's the most important thing if they want to have.
The federal elections commission was designed to do this this is a bipartisan group it is statutorily empowered.
What we're talking about it -- powering the power of Obama administration.
For their political appointees to know this information as part.
Of their grand scheme to figure out who -- exactly different if there was a Republican president.
My thoughts would be the same because whatever good whatever happens to corrupt the process.
That makes it really about making sure that when you're scored your scored giving to the right party.
I understand president Obama's constantly talking about the Polk Brothers giving and about all -- others he's not talking about unions giving.
But up all that really hypocritical things the president left the unions out of this so the union's independent expenditures are not gonna be seen.
That the fact is the president ridiculed.
The house the senate and they in the Supreme Court at the state of the union when he said he objected to their decision.
He is trying to undo part of it for political gain.
We're all for transparency I'm the founder and -- chair of the of this caucus.
I would capsule absolutely want to have transparency.
If you give to Planned Parenthood that's none of my business and under this if you're a contractor.
They're gonna know and there are going to be able to score and its political appointees -- would have access to this.
Well after -- style politics at its worst.
I'm sure they takes an issue with it being called -- nixonian less but.
At this -- certainly -- -- -- because it is exactly like it nixonian enemies list that's what it's exactly like they take exception because it's too darn similar to what we saw a generation ago.
Congressman I -- appreciate you taking the time to join us today -- continue to follow obviously a lot of different emotions about this and and passion about it.
Yeah we're right on this one we'll continue to watch -- congressman thank you very much for that.
Filter by section