Community | April 21, 2011 | 106 comments

With A Stroke Of His Pen Obama Strikes Back At Citizens United

source: http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-citizens-united

Image
bundlebear
A little over a year ago the Supreme Court of the United States made a controversial ruling that says corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. The case known as Citizens United v Federal Election Commission allows corporations to use their general funds to buy campaign ads that was prohibited under federal law, and opened the door for unlimited contributions by corporations as well as unions. The high court cited the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of the right of free speech, and it was the first time a corporate entity was treated like a person. Detractors of the ruling cried foul and correctly pointed out that, “The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new weapon. A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: if you vote wrong, my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election.” The ruling also opened the door for foreign governments to affect the outcome of United States elections.

There was an attempt to assuage the damage from Citizens United in the form of the Disclose Act that passed in the Democratic controlled House last year but failed in the Senate because Democrats couldn’t muster the super majority needed to overcome Republican’s filibuster threat. The failed legislation provided tough new disclosure rules for groups that invest in the election process. President Obama summed up the necessity of the Disclose Act calling it “a critical piece of legislation to control the flood of special interest money into our elections,” and, “that it mandates unprecedented transparency in campaign spending, and it ensures that corporations who spend money on American elections are accountable first and foremost to the American people.” Since Republicans are enamored with the notion of unlimited special interest money without transparency or accountability, it was not surprising they threatened to filibuster the measure. The 2010 midterm elections confirmed Americans’ fears with money from special interest groups and corporations flooding the airwaves with fallacious assertions and inaccurate characterizations of everything from the health law to socialist tendencies of Democratic candidates. It appeared that since the Disclose Act failed, elections would be bought by the highest bidder for years to come, but a report today gives some hope that democracy is not dead in America; yet.

On Wednesday it was reported that President Obama was drafting an executive order that would require companies pursuing federal contracts to disclose political contributions that have been secret under the Citizen’s United ruling. A senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Hans A. von Spakovsky, lambasted the proposed executive order saying that, “The draft order tries to interfere with the First Amendment rights of contractors.” Mr. von Spakovsky dutifully made all the right-wing, neo-con arguments including bringing Planned Parenthood and unions into the discussion. The draft order did not exempt any entity from disclosure rules and presents a reasonable requirement on contractors seeking government contracts. Several states have similar “pay to play” laws to prevent businesses from using unlimited donations to buy lucrative state contracts from slimy legislators. Thus far the only legislator who has railed against the proposed order was Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). McConnell called the proposal an “outrageous and anti-Democratic abuse of executive branch authority,” and went on to say, “Just last year, the Senate rejected a cynical effort to muzzle critics of this administration and its allies in Congress.”

McConnell is working under the assumption that the draft order is an attempt to restrict free speech, but there is nothing in the order remotely resembling free speech violations. The exact wording of the president’s executive order says, “The Federal Government prohibits federal contractors from making certain contributions during the course of negotiation and performance of a contract.” There is no free speech issue and the order applies to union contractors as well as non-union contractors. There is no special dispensation of muzzles or prohibitions on political support; only certain contributions during negotiations and performance. Republicans must hate the idea of corporations like Halliburton or Koch Industries losing the ability to contribute unlimited money to legislators for special treatment in securing government contracts, especially no-bid contracts like the ones Dick Cheney’s company’s received in Iraq and Afghanistan. In lieu of veracity, McConnell accuses President Obama of muzzling critics and suppressing free speech when in fact, the order will bring increased transparency and accountability to the process of awarding contracts. Republicans made it their goal to increase transparency and accountability in government in the lead up to the midterm elections, so McConnell should be thrilled that President Obama is helping them achieve their goal.

The real objection Republicans and the Heritage Foundation have with the order is that it removes the possibility of corporate money influencing government more than it already does. The Citizens’ United ruling was a gift to Republicans who do the bidding of corporations in exchange for campaign contributions and it became obvious after reports that two Supreme Court Justices attended a secret Koch Industries strategy meeting prior to voting to extend free speech rights to corporations just in time for the 2010 midterm campaigns.

The midterm elections saw a record amount of campaign contributions from anonymous sources that were illegal for years until the high court broke with precedent and gave personhood to corporations. The rash of Republican governors’ victories and subsequent corporate favoritism and tax cuts at the expense of poor and working class Americans is evidence that there is a serious need for accountability and transparency in campaign financing.

The response from McConnell and the Heritage Foundation is not unexpected and is most likely the tip of the iceberg as far as criticism and false indignation are concerned. The screed from Hans A. von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation is a preview of the propaganda right-wing outlets like Fox News and their pundits will spew on an hourly basis once the order becomes common knowledge.

Conservatives are not known for their veracity, and based on von Spakovsky’s portrayal of the order, there is no telling how Fox, Limbaugh, Beck and myriad Republican presidential hopefuls will spin the story, or to what end their faux outrage will take. One thing is certain; Republicans will make the order tyrannical and un-Constitutional before the dust settles and that should be a signal that the president’s proposal is appropriate and in keeping with democratic principles of fairness. Of course, any attempt at ensuring fairness in government is contrary to Republican principles of corruption, fear mongering, and doing the bidding of the Heritage Foundation.


http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-citizens-united
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   US Politics,   9 more
  2. tags:
    Corruption,  Corporations,  Corporate Greed,  Citizens United,  1 more
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka
  4.     
    |

106 comments // With A Stroke Of His Pen Obama Strikes Back At Citizens United

  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
    • +2
      COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM  

    • Checked, but not mated!

      The Robert's court needs to go!

      We need to levy at least a 95% tax on all wealth over 10 million, and reclaim our stolen money!

      We need a national referendum so we can vote on campaign finance reform and end corporate personhood!

      Only this will put us on a path to salvation!

    • 1 year ago
  • sammykatz
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
  • unionparsonage
    • -4
      unionparsonage  

    • The author claims that the supreme court ruling was "the first time a corporate entity was treated like a person." Of course this isn't true, because corporations pay taxes just like people do. So now that Obama has declared, with "a stroke of his pen", that corporations aren't people anymore, then why should corporations continue to pay taxes?

    • 1 year ago
  • Toughth
    • +4
      Toughth  
    • unionparsonage:

      Corperations are not people, but they do make the peoples money and diseminate it to stockholders. They also hire union busters, congressmen to do their bidding and carry a disproportional weght of power in our nation.

    • 1 year ago
  • TheAmbivalante
  • unionparsonage
    • 0
      unionparsonage  
    • Toughth:

      No. They don't make "the people's money." They make their own money, which goes to their employees (wages) and their stockholders (dividends). Wages and dividends are already taxed, so why is it necessary to tax "corporate income" before it is distributed within the corporation? Eliminating the corporate income tax would reduce lobbying and increase incentives for corporations to stay in the U.S.

    • 1 year ago
  • unionparsonage
  • bigbenny
  • Draamm
  • ROSERITA
  • extracrazykiwi2008
  • Paratus
    • -7
      Paratus  

    • 'The exact wording of the president’s executive order says, “The Federal Government prohibits federal contractors from making certain contributions during the course of negotiation and performance of a contract.”'
      I have a problem with the executive office promulgating legislation when it is the province of Congress to do so. Now, as the so clearly unbiased (sarcasm) post suggests, will the rest of the donors, unions etc. have to abide by the same rules or will they get the usual wink and a nod? This is so clearly an end run people everywhere should raise their eyebrows at this one.
      I think ALL corporate, union, individual influence should be removed from the halls of the central government. If we return to a limited government as Constitutionally provided for we would not have these problems but for our ruler Barry to use this method to attack one arm of influence while ignoring the others is not the way.

    • 1 year ago
  • Mark701
    • +4
      Mark701  
    • Paratus:

      Wow paratus I think I may actually agree with something you said. Indeed. ALL corporate, union, PAC, individual i.e. any outside campaign contributions should be a federal offense. Elections should be publicly funded with a finite sum of money. Everyone gets the same amount. It's the only thing I can think of that would actually get politicians to focus on the needs of the millions instead of the wants of a few.

    • 1 year ago
  • mapczar
    • +2
      mapczar  
    • Paratus:

      Well if placing restrictions on using government money in a contract is the purview of the legislature and not within the authority of the Executive Branch but stating you will not enforce the law in a signing statement as Bush did is ok ... you must be a Republican.

    • 1 year ago
  • dreaddaze
  • 2damax
  • coxian_armada
  • wolfess
    • +6
      wolfess  

    • This president appears to be much better at this 'executive order' thing than his predecessor was :-)!!
      Two positive actions in a week -- what is this country (and president) coming to????
      And thank you Bundlebear -- I always enjoy your contributions.

    • 1 year ago
  • jpvt
    • +5
      jpvt  

    • How would making corporations pursuing federal contracts disclose political contributions be, in any definition, a violation of freedom of speech? It's saying you can still say whatever you want, but if you want a federal contract we want to know who you are giving your political money to. In fact, it's making sure that the ones who are speaking will get "credit" for what they are saying.

    • 1 year ago
  • tverdell
  • Schnookums
    • +5
      Schnookums  

    • Hans A. von Spakovsky, lambasted the proposed executive order saying that, “The draft order tries to interfere with the First Amendment rights of contractors.”

      The response should be; If you don't like this rule, perhaps we should discuss stripping citizenship from corporations all-together? Corporations wouldn't have to worry about violations to its First Amendment rights if they weren't treated like flesh-and-blood people.

      ((edit))

      We should discuss this with them anyway.

    • 1 year ago
  • 2damax
  • Richard_Wyatt
  • figgdimension
  • Straighttalker
  • wally60
  • samthesixth
    • +8
      samthesixth  

    • It's amazing how powerful that pen is. I wish he would put it to other uses---Gitmo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Single Payer, Manning, Medical, reducing the defense budget.

    • 1 year ago
  • August_K
  • dem68ok
    • +7
      dem68ok  

    • Thanks bundlebear for the great story! My solution to the money problems in campaigning is to cut of all contributions to any candidate running for office in the national arena. Congress will never do it, but they should totally scrap campaign laws and create a fair and reasonable set of laws. For example, use one million govt. money for presidential campaigns period. Also limit their advertisements to one hour infomercials twice a month only on NPR, thus taking out the buying of politicians and then the senator or representative owes the persons or corporations some legislation favoring them over the American public!

      Just take big money out of politics and level the playing field so the common person can possibly be allowed his/her dream to become reality. Otherwise we might as well be a government not for the people but ran by nobles and a king or qween, the richest of the rich! Let us return to feiftoms and such as in the middle ages...!

    • 1 year ago
  • Nephwrack
  • UtopianSky
    • +2
      UtopianSky  

    • Excellent- but the sad part is this is one of those issues that are too complex for the man on the street to understand, so will neither get him votes, or lose them.

    • 1 year ago
  • BigAL72
    • +9
      BigAL72  

    • Great article. The Corporations are always going to have the advantage over the Voters. Why? Because the Corporations have Americans right where they want them....divided almost 50-50.

    • 1 year ago
  • Plue
  • Straighttalker
  • SFirman
  • moodyblue
    • +16
      moodyblue  
    • BurningbeardFYA:

      communist morons
      blind partisan hacks
      stupid fools
      Christian nutjob neocons
      dumb-as-hell Neoliberal communist idiots
      partisan psychopaths
      fascist
      insane neoliberal socialist
      goddamn right-wing and left-wing lunatics
      fatuous and unamerican and unconstitutional fringe groups
      Piss off

      wow, I have a shirt you might like, it reads - My anger management class pisses me off.

    • 1 year ago
  • PzLuvHappeniz
    • +12
      PzLuvHappeniz  
    • BurningbeardFYA:

      I would take your comment much more seriously if you actually resorted to debating instead of spewing random insults about being on a side of the political spectrum. Please if you are going to troll do it elsewhere.

    • 1 year ago
  • budsnews
  • xhuffpo
  • Plue
  • tlbuffin
  • wally60
    • -4
      wally60  
    • BurningbeardFYA:

      its good to see you hate both sides.americans really need yo pull there heads out and smell the air because it stinks we fight with one another and they win idiots. i think you have a lot of good points

    • 1 year ago
  • ZiggyStrange
  • ZiggyStrange
  • sammykatz
  • Nephwrack
  • VoyagerFilms
  • tverdell
    • +6
      tverdell  

    • If a corporation is a person, I assume the SC is referring to the management. Then if that is the case, management should have personal liability. I doubt that would be the actual case. You see, you form a corporation to protect yourself from personal liabilities.

      This is quite flawed.

      Just like making the decision that a state cannot perform a recount in a Presidential election -- overriding states rights.

      Very flawed indeed.

      I expect this behavior from our Presidents and Congress, but one would hope you could hold the SCOTUS in a higher regard.

      As someone said below, this court will be judged with great shame by historians.

      But the justices probably don't care.

    • 1 year ago
  • PzLuvHappeniz
  • tverdell
  • sammykatz
  • tverdell
    • 0
      tverdell  
    • sammykatz:

      Or they could claim this decision cannot be used as a precedence.

      This is what they claimed in the 2000 election decision.

      Basically, they are admitting that their decision is bullshit.

    • 1 year ago
  • sammykatz
  • sammykatz
    • +5
      sammykatz  

    • Way to go Mr. President!!! Now if the ACLU can mount a challenge to Citizens given the Koch's lastest voter intimidation mailed to 50,000 employees and demand a review by SCOTUS, perhaps Citizens will be overturned: the high court has corrected and/or clarified onerous decisions throughout our history...

    • 1 year ago
  • Conniepae
  • Prijedor
    • -7
      Prijedor  

    • I love the "Since Republicans are enamored with the notion of unlimited special interest money"
      because democrats dont do such things at all, and its putting all republicans in one pot, like they all do it

    • 1 year ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
    • +1
      VFORVENDETTA  

    • Nice job Mr. B.

      What Obama did was obviously a step in the right direction, but I still have my doubts, it is my understanding through various media outlets, that Obama has become acutely aware of how much he is alienated himself from the progressive left, with his constant compromising, and in the weeks and months to come, he's probably going to do more and more to make rational people happy, problem is, if he takes just enough progressive action just to get reelected, imagine how the pendulum is going to swing back the other way once he would be elected in 12, I believe that many people's fears is that he will immediately go back to being "the great compromiser" again, and sell working-class interests out corporate interest, that I believe, is peoples biggest fear, I know it's mine.

    • 1 year ago
  • August_K
  • VFORVENDETTA
    • +2
      VFORVENDETTA  
    • August_K:

      You bring up something that I've wondered about for quite some time, where when or how did it become law, that a president cannot serve more than two terms? if my memory serves, Roosevelt died in his fourth term of office, was it changed then? and if so, why? after all, Roosevelt did make it through three full terms, so I've never understood that, anyone care to educate me?

    • 1 year ago
  • Nick19
  • oppressed1
  • fun_size
    • 0
      fun_size  
    • oppressed1:

      Dude its sad that some people on this site vote down EVERY post you make regardless of content... its so petty. So much for the free sharing of ideas. Voted up for great justice!

    • 1 year ago
  • btc
  • oppressed1
  • outofyounothingmuch
    • -9
      outofyounothingmuch  
    • Image

    • All the president’s funny money
      by Michelle Malkin
      Creators Syndicate
      Copyright 2011

      Ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching. President Obama’s perpetual campaign cash-o-matic machine kicks into high gear again this week as the celebrity-in-chief heads to Hollywood for several high-priced fundraisers. But while the Democrats’ 2012 re-election team stuffs its hands into every liberal deep pocket in sight, questions about the Obama 2008 campaign finance operation still fester.

      Last week, the laggard watchdogs at the Federal Election Commission announced an audit of the Obama 2008 campaign committee — which raised a record-setting $750 million. White House flacks are downplaying the probe as a “routine review.”

      But there’s nothing routine about the nearly $3 million Obama has spent on legal expenses to address federal campaign finance irregularities and inquiries. Roll Call reports that Obama’s campaign legal fees have exceeded all other House and presidential campaign committees, including members of Congress under ethics investigations.

      There’s nothing routine about the whopping $6 million that Team Obama has refunded to individual donors since Obama took office.

      And there’s nothing routine about the 26 warning letters to Obama for America totaling “more than 1,500 pages of questions and data that outlined compliance concerns — including the longest one ever sent to a presidential candidate,” according to Roll Call.

      Among the Obama 2008 campaign committee’s shadiest transactions that have gone unpunished:

      – Foreign funny money. Federal election law bans foreign nationals from contributing to American candidates. But during 2008, the Obama campaign was forced to return an illegal foreign donation worth $31,100 made by two brothers in the Gaza Strip, and even mainstream news outlets reported that candidate Obama’s money-handlers had routinely failed to verify citizenship by checking donors’ passports. As the Associated Press reported at the time: “One donor, Tom Sanderson of Canada, made clear his $500 contribution came from a foreign source. He included a note that said, ‘I am not an American citizen!’ Obama’s campaign took the money anyway…”

      Another illegal foreign donor, Australian Richard Watters, contributed $1,000, “entering a fake U.S. passport number — a random jumble of numbers and letters” onto the Obama donation website. “He said he also checked a box stating that he was an American living overseas, ‘because I could see it wasn’t going anywhere if I didn’t do that.’”

      Obama raked in at least $2 million in overseas donations.

      – Online donor credit-card fraud. Weeks before the 2008 presidential election, investigative journalist Ken Timmerman blew the whistle on rampant phony straw contributors slipping through the Obama donation site. Just one example: “Mr. Good Will” from Austin, Texas. Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.” Timmerman’s analysis of 1.4 million individual donations to the Obama campaign discovered “1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25. In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375. Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.”

      Subsequent digging by conservative bloggers found that the Obama campaign’s donor website appeared to intentionally disable security protocols and facilitate illegal donations with bogus names, shell addresses and untraceable credit cards. Among Obama’s online “donors”: Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson, Mr. Doodad Pro, John Galt, Della Ware, Crazy Eight and Adolfe Hitler.

      – Social justice funny money. In 2008, the Obama campaign wrote checks totaling more than $800,000 to a nonprofit offshoot of ACORN called Citizens Services Inc. The campaign claimed the money went to nonpartisan get-out-the-vote services. But receipts showed the funds paid for polling, advance work and event staging supplied by a nonprofit that supposedly does simple canvassing work on behalf of low-income people. The FEC allowed Obama to wave his magic wand and amend the records to change political expenses into non-political ones. As a Republican National Committee staffer commented at the time: “For a candidate who claims to be practicing ‘new’ politics, his FEC reports look an awful lot like the ‘old-style’ Chicago politics of yesterday.”

      On a related front, ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief filed announced plans to file an FEC complaint last year over illegal coordination between ACORN and the Obama campaign. MonCrief publicly released Obama donor lists supplied to ACORN affiliate Project Vote, which were allegedly used to target maxed-out presidential donors. The scheme involved converting the expenditures by Project Vote, ACORN and ACORN-affiliated entities to illegal, excessive corporate contributions to the Obama presidential campaign, in violation of federal law.

      Nothing to see here, move along? The only “routine” business as usual being conducted here is Chicago-style self-exemption business as usual: Rules are for fools. Let the crooked cash flow in.
      pril 20, 2011 12:32 PM by
      http://michellemalkin.com/

    • 1 year ago
  • Vierotchka
  • outofyounothingmuch
  • SFirman
  • tlbuffin
  • outofyounothingmuch
  • Vierotchka
  • rustyred
  • oppressed1
    • +1
      oppressed1  

    • This would be far less a factor if we had two term limits for everyone. Theses career politicians are the problem, because the can be bought and sold. If you only had a fixed time you would possibly do what'd I'n the best intrest of those you represent, because you don't get to stay I'n Washington for 50 years.

    • 1 year ago
  • simplecj
    • +8
      simplecj  

    • They need to just overturn that piece of bullshit legislation! Corporations are not people! Allowing them to spend unlimited amounts on political agendas is absolutely irresponsible with or without transparency. I remember when I heard about this ruling, I was like, WTF?? Seriously WTF!!!

    • 1 year ago
  • ptr23
    • +6
      ptr23  

    • This is great! Not perfect but a start. I'm feeling positive. Hopefully this is a prelude of whats to come. +1 for progress.

    • 1 year ago
  • Leen61
  • SoCalFramer
    • +7
      SoCalFramer  

    • It does not mean much but it does provide a lot of sunshine on a slimmy area of corrupt corporate practices. Citizens united will be overturned by a future supreme court and called a dark hour in American history.

    • 1 year ago
  • PzLuvHappeniz
    • +4
      PzLuvHappeniz  

    • This can be taken two ways, Obama is taking a strike at corporate america and drawing a line or (to play devils advocate) he is trying to restrict funding to his competitors for the 2012 election. I like to believe it's the first one.

    • 1 year ago
  • SFirman
  • Arizona_Huey
    • +4
      Arizona_Huey  
    • PzLuvHappeniz:

      Well, on your first choice - excellent move Obama. Somebody has to start the process of wrestling some power away from corporations. On you second choice - it most certainly isn't as bad as how the teapublicans are restricting funding to their competitors by crushing the unions - at least Obama's order crosses both parties (although we do know it will hit the teapublicans in their tea bags)

    • 1 year ago
  • PzLuvHappeniz
    • +6
      PzLuvHappeniz  
    • Arizona_Huey:

      fair is fair, except for the fact that he has incumbency but that is natural to elections. As many votes down as this will get me, I would prefer another term of Obama over a Tea party candidate.

    • 1 year ago
  • Prijedor
  • budsnews
  • SFirman
  • tlbuffin
  • Prijedor
  • ZiggyStrange
  • tlbuffin
  • Prijedor
    • -3
      Prijedor  
    • tlbuffin:

      yea... the best thing to do is to be un-realistic... talking facts, getting ideas back and forth, seeing why I feel the way I do is just a crazy thing to do, so we will talk about some ferry tale, unrelated crap to try and make me look like something else...
      talking about why you support a lier thats in the office, thats done more for bankers then people is totally a crazy thing, so you will smear me

      grow the fuck up

    • 1 year ago
  • artemis6
  • ampersand
    • +8
      ampersand  

    • The executive order only "prohibits federal contractors from making certain contributions during the course of negotiation and performance of a contract.”
      It's a tiny step and as noted even that was done over the screaming objections of the Rethuglicans.
      To really address the problem Rethuglican obstructionism needs to be eliminated by thoroughly voting the weasels out.
      As the right-wing Supreme Court ignored the laws protecting elections from corporate tampering (on the books at least since the 1920s), we need to update the language of the Constitution to make it impossible for them to winnow out this bizarre interpretation of "free speech" to suit their corporate pal's agendas.
      Whatever is left in the soul of this battered nation can't afford the leisurely pace of waiting for these twisted fucks to die.

    • 1 year ago
  • moodyblue
  • unimatrix0
  • northernexpat
    • +6
      northernexpat  

    • Now the Democrats have got to get out there in the MSM and counter the attacks from the right. It may not stop all corruption in bought elections, but it is a start. Too bad he couldn't make this Executive Order apply to State contracts as well.

    • 1 year ago
  • wayseeker
    • +16
      wayseeker  

    • The Court ruling is a slap in the face too average Americans. Thank you Mr. President for fighting their sword with your pen.

    • 1 year ago
  • Darevalo
    • +5
      Darevalo  

    • there needs to be a declaration of corporate citizen, with separate rights and taxes(i would say higher). easy to understand so that anything like this could make sense.

    • 1 year ago
  • Milieu
    • +14
      Milieu  

    • "Of course, any attempt at ensuring fairness in government is contrary to Republican principles of corruption, fear mongering, and doing the bidding of the Heritage Foundation."

      Correct. Concise. Factual.

      Just what you expect of good reporting

    • 1 year ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • jonlemnh
    • +4
      jonlemnh  

    • "ans A. von Spakovsky, lambasted the proposed executive order saying that, “The draft order tries to interfere with the First Amendment rights of contractors" how is not disclosing info violation 1st ammendment if companies refuse to give info?

    • 1 year ago
12
1 - 100 of 106
more from Community:
from the community

top videos