[EL] Pay-to-play will thrive in budget debate

Fri Sep 23 11:49:44 PDT 2011

As explained here
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/the-solyndra-debacle-and-disc
losure, Solyndra is not covered by the proposed Executive Order. 

Of course, I presume that will fact will be used merely as an excuse to
demand even more, since what can be demanded apparently knows no bounds.

Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault 
  Designated Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317
bsmith at law.capital.edu
http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp

-----Original Message-----
From: Trevor Potter [mailto:tpotter at capdale.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:57 PM
To: Smith, Brad; Joseph Birkenstock; Craig Holman; law-election at UCI.EDU
Subject: RE: Re: [EL] Pay-to-play will thrive in budget debate

How , exactly, do we know that  Solyndra gave no money to C4s or C 6s or
other non-disclosing groups to finance political expenditures?? That
information is exactly what is currently not disclosed by federal
contractors...
Trevor Potter

Sent by Good Messaging (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Smith, Brad [mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu]
Sent:	Thursday, September 22, 2011 12:55 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:	Joseph Birkenstock; Craig Holman; law-election at UCI.EDU
Subject:	Re: [EL] Pay-to-play will thrive in budget debate

Solyndra wouldn't have been affected at all by the type of disclosure
Craig and Joe seek. The company's unknown spending was on lobbying, not
campaign contributions. The contributions of executives were already
disclosed; the company itself did not make campaign expenditures, which
were, we note, illegal at the time it got the loan guarantees anyway.
Indeed, it is the fact that these disclosures are already required that
allowed Prof. Zullo to conduct his research uncovering the "suspicious
pattern."  

The question is not whether companies inform "officeholders and party
officials" whom they support or oppose but whether we insist that they
include that information, including data on the activities of their
employees and data on giving that is not necessarily related to politics
at all, on their applications to be reviewed by purchasing officials.
Craig and Joe still offer no reason for requiring that disclosure.

Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault 

  Designated Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 East Broad Street

Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 236-6317

bsmith at law.capital.edu <mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu> 

http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp
<http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp> 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of
Joseph Birkenstock
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 12:41 PM
To: Craig Holman; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Pay-to-play will thrive in budget debate

Craig, stop being silly.  Everyone knows corruption in government
contracting only comes when political spending of the prospective
contractors is broadly disclosed to the public, not when that
information is privately known only to a subset of activists and
politicians.  For example, I recall several long chains of commentary
attacking the way that public disclosure (but only public disclosure)
will lead to the enforcement of an "enemies list" of business partners
that are presumptively unwelcome as government vendors.  

In fact, it seems to me that every instance of reconsideration of the
DISCLOSE Act or policies toward the same effect has launched a
mini-flood of tweets under the #enemieslist hashtag - but never any
consideration of whether a private list of political help from companies
known only to friendly public officeholders could have any similar
corrupting effect.  

To be sure, there haven't been any tweet floods at all, large or small,
under the #friendslist hashtag.  Haven't you been paying attention?

________________________________
Joseph M. Birkenstock, Esq.
Caplin & Drysdale, Chtd.
One Thomas Circle, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 862-7836
www.capdale.com/jbirkenstock
*also admitted to practice in CA

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of
Craig Holman
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 11:36 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: [EL] Pay-to-play will thrive in budget debate

Colleagues:

Below is a snippet of an op-ed I published in Roll Call today on the
supercommittee and pay-to-play corruption. It would have been
appropriate to mention the Solyndra issue (but the story broke after I
wrote the piece), in which many congressional Republicans are beginning
to realize -- in contradiction to their opposition to Obama's proposed
transparency executive order -- that the lack of full disclosure of
political spending by government contractors may result in pay-to-play
favoritism in the awarding of contracts.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_33/craig_holman_pay_to_play_will_thriv
e_budget_debate-208921-1.html

Pay-to-play corruption thrives in the shadows. As long as the public is
generally kept in the dark as to how much a corporation is spending on
behalf of super committee officials and their respective parties,
pay-to-play can be an exceedingly effective tool in shaping the budget
debate.

There is a viable solution that could take effect almost immediately: a
proposed executive order under consideration by President Barack Obama
that would require government contractors to fully disclose their
campaign contributions and expenditures to the public, including
corporate funds for spending on elections laundered through third-party
groups.

Craig Holman, Ph.D.
Government Affairs Lobbyist
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue NE
Washington, D.C. 20003
TEL: (202) 454-5182
CEL: (202) 905-7413
FAX: (202) 547-7392
Holman at aol.com

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To
ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you
that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained
in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,
for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code, or (ii)  promoting, marketing, or recommending to another
party any tax-related matter addressed herein. 

This message is for the use of the intended recipient only.  It is from
a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To
ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you
that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained
in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,
for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal
Revenue Code, or (ii)  promoting, marketing, or recommending to another
party any tax-related matter addressed herein. 

This message is for the use of the intended recipient only.  It is from
a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.