President Obama is said to be considering an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their political spending. He should sign it immediately.
He should go further and ban political spending by federal contractors that receive more than half their revenues from government.
Ever since the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that corporations can contribute unlimited amounts to “independent” election efforts, big businesses have been funneling huge amounts of cash – often secretly – into American politics.
That’s bad enough. But when government contractors do the spending, American taxpayers foot the bill twice over.
Our tax dollars are spent on their lobbying and campaign contributions. And if their lobbying and contributing is successful, our tax dollars are spent on federal contracts we often don’t need.
A study by St. Louis University political scientist Christopher Witko reveals a direct relationship between what a corporation spends on campaign contributions and the amount it receives back in government contracts.
Reviewing campaign contributions and contracts from 1979 to 2006, Witko found that even after controlling for past contracts, companies that contributed more money to federal candidates subsequently got more and bigger contracts.
A case in point is America’s largest contractor – Lockheed Martin. More than 80 percent of Lockheed’s revenues come from the U.S. government, mostly from the Defense Department.
But it’s hard to say American taxpayers have got a good deal from Lockheed.
For example, Lockheed is the main contractor for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. It’s been the single most expensive weapons program in history, and also one of the worst – plagued by so many engine failures and software glitches that Lockheed and its subcontractors practically had to start over this year.
Why do we keep throwing good money after bad?
Follow the money behind the money. According to
Originally appeared at: http://robertreich.org/post/123138820185