Obama’s ‘dark money’ order

Obama has repeatedly decried the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which removed restrictions on the amount of money large corporations and unions may donate to political campaigns.

But the White House has kept the issue on the back burner, especially since Republicans unsympathetic to the president’s appeals took over both chambers of Congress this year.

Advocates say Obama should continue his practice of side-stepping Congress with executive orders and force federal contractors’ political donations into the open.

The president has already signed executive orders raising the minimum wage for federal contract workers and giving those employees new discrimination protections.

“The president has the power and authority to immediately require disclosure of political spending by government contractors. We urge him to act now,” read a recent paper by the Brennan Center for Justice.

“Such disclosure would not bring all dark money to light, but it would expose a type of dark money that should be especially troubling: campaign contributions that could have been given to influence a contract awarded by the government.”

Earlier this month, protesters delivered more than 550,000 signatures to the White House in a petition calling for such an executive order.

When asked whether Obama would consider such a move, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said, “I don’t have any new executive orders to announce for you today or to preview for you. I can tell you that this is an issue that’s important to the president.”

Schultz went on to say that Obama would support legislation forcing corporations to disclose any political donation greater than $10,000. That legislation, known as the Disclose Act, has gone nowhere on Capitol Hill.

However, the president has made a habit of demanding major legislation and then, when Congress does not do what he wants, acting unilaterally and accusing Republicans who disagree of obstructing his agenda. The highest-profile example of such action is Obama choosing to defer deportations and issue work permits for up to 5 million illegal immigrants.

In 2011, the White House drafted an executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose political donations as part of their bid submissions. Obama did not execute the draft, much to the chagrin of those looking for greater White House involvement on campaign finance.

The president gave little indication in his State of the Union address this year that he would make a fresh push on campaign finance reform.

“A better politics is one where we spend less time drowning in dark money for ads that pull us into the gutter, and spend more time lifting young people up, with a sense of purpose and possibility, and asking them to join in the great mission of building America,” he said in his lone mention of the topic, not giving any specific prescriptions.

Obama has certainly benefited from some of the massive contributions to presidential candidates and Super PACs organized on their behalf.

But some of the president’s closest allies say Obama has plenty of motivation to tackle campaign finance.

Former Obama senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer told the Huffington Post in December that the administration was “not comfortable” with its legacy on campaign finance, particularly after a spending deal at the end of 2014 permitted even larger donations to political parties.

Republicans are adamantly opposed to new limits on political contributions, saying such measures stifle free speech. They are equally dismissive of Obama tackling the issue through executive order.

“Barack Obama railing about the supposed evils of dark money is one of the greatest hypocrisies in modern political history,” said a senior Senate Republican aide. “He has always tried to have it both ways, demanding reforms while reaping the rewards of the system. It’s absurd.”