Republicans Go After Sleazy Contractors
"In an unexpected legislative twist, Republicans in Washington sponsored a bill to defund contractors that have defrauded the Federal government. The bill passed the House 345-75, with many Democrats joining in to vote for it. As a result, the Project on Government Oversight has been asked to examine its database of contractors to see which ones could be eliminated based on the new law. Among the companies that could be barred from doing business with the government are Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman."
Say you don't remember reading a story like that? Well, it happened, but you might have missed the fine print. Here's the scoop:
In an effort to defund ACORN, the Republicans made the bill so broad that it applies to any organization that has been charged with
- breaking federal or state election laws
- breaking lobbying disclosure laws
- breaking campaign finance laws
- filing fraudalent paperwork with any federal or state agency.
Rep. Alan Grayson (yes, THAT Alan Grayson) has set up a Google spreadsheet where persons can suggest contractors who have been charged with violations and include the documentation. He then intends to add that list in the legislative history of the bill, so that judges can reference it when determining whether a company should be denied federal funds.
"Surely this isn't what the Republicans intended," you exclaim, in between chortles. Of course not! But, when you write a bill in haste, and pass it in an attempt to score a quick political point, sometimes you don't consider all the effects of what you write.
But take heart, dear Republican lovers of big government contractors! Another on-the-ball Democrat, Jerry Nadler of New York, has pointed out that the bill seems to be a "bill of attainder" -- which would make it unconstitutional, right out of the gate.
So, the bottom line is this: either the Republicans wrote a bill to go after ACORN that is so unconstitutional that a first-year law student would have seen it in an instant ... OR they have written a bill that imposes a "corporate death penalty" on some of the Republicans' biggest donors.
::
One final note: while I think it is hilarious that the Defund ACORN bill has blown up like this, I actually support the concept. A company that defrauds the government should be barred from further contracts, at least for a period of time. For too long, we have put up with gross fraud and abuse of governmental procurement systems. It's interesting to note that the highest-ranking Republican on the Oversight committee, Darrell Issa, actually agrees with Grayson's reading of the bill. Perhaps eliminating war profiteers and other sleazy contractors is something Reps and Dems could agree on after all.
Monday, October 5, 2009 at 1:16AM
Reader Comments (4)
My uncle is a contractor and I just believe there are more important things in the world now to worry about. The politicians major in minor issues.
Misty Mays
Misty -- thanks for dropping by! No disagreement from me -- many politicians (in all parties) are more interested in scoring points than in addressing the big issues they get paid to address.
Bruce - I find it odd that you didn't mention the "contractor" by name? It was ACORN that really needed to be "defunded". This group has been in the news, captured on video doing some pretty aggregious things. Plus they have multiple law suits pending in at least 7 states for voter registration fraud. I don't want my tax dollars going to this group ...for anything!
And, what's wrong with defunding contractors who violate the laws? I don't really care if it's Northrup Grumman or Joe Schmo contractor. If it were you or me, and we broke the smallest of laws or bent the rules - we'd be sitting in jail.
Patty -- third graf down -- "effort to defund ACORN" -- sorry, I thought everyone already knew that part of the story. But you're right -- the original intent of the bill was to defund Acorn, which is the name of the bill as well.
As for ACORN itself ... I wasn't trying to get into that mess. There's enough mud-slinging on both sides of that argument to keep Chlorox in business for life. The sting video was egregious, as you say; and, they haven't always been as tight as one would like with their registration forms. On the other hand, the TOTAL amount of money they've received from the government is miniscule compared to the billions thrown at some of these contractors, and the stories there are just as egregious (the military contractor charging for services to soldiers already killed in Iraq comes to mind). The difference? Usually no sting cameras in board rooms.
No, I'm not defending ACORN. The point of this little story, though, was just the unexpected consequences of a bill written to attack a community organizing group that winds up also smacking some big corporations.
And thanks for stopping by! I'm glad to count my sis-in-law among my few visitors. :-)