There was a follow-up article today, by opinion writer Marc A Theissen. He noted that last week the second-ranking House Democrat, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), noted:
The issue on contracting ought to be on the merits of the contractors’ bid and capabilities. I think there are some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political implications in the context of awarding contracts.Representative Steny Hoyer is correct.
Regards — Cliff
What if the disclosure only listed total amount given to members of the relevant committee or sub-committee?
ReplyDeleteThere could be a series of blinds put in place that could make it less "political." Partisanship isn't really an issue, as we all know the big boys OWN everybody.
Editorial acknowledgment of ownership interests, as CBS News does when covering Charlie Sheen's mishaps, is never out of place. I hardly conclude that disclosing political contributions rises to the level of "considering political implications in the context of awarding contracts". Transparency is never a bad thing as far as I'm concerned.
ReplyDeletei think the problem is not with disclosure per se, but convenient transparency as so-called disclosure plays out. While I am fairly certain that the GOP has storefront organizations the purpose of which is to essentially launder contributions into the campaign coffers, the DNC and the Presidency also have the same mechanisms in place. I have no more faith in the "real" numbers reporting contributions to the Elect Obama campaign before or coming next year by organizations such as SEIU, the AFL, the UAW, and so on. I am also fairly certain that the numbers are further skewed by whatever media maven wants to register a point.
ReplyDeleteWhat is being played out here is a massive chess game among power players and we mere mortals are simply convenient bystanders, left to wonder what actually happened...and never really knowing.
The dynamic between corruption and politics has been long established and improved upon over the life of organized societies....and will continue to be refined only for the benefit of the dominating participants. He who has the gold rules...and the more you can get...the more absolute the rule.
In many ways this subject is not even worth the time to discuss it. After all, what is any of us going to do about it...one way or the other? Sorry, the WH and Congressional suggestion programs are closed.
Again, I pretty much agree with Neal on this.
ReplyDeleteEspecially this: What is being played out here is a massive chess game among power players and we mere mortals are simply convenient bystanders, left to wonder what actually happened...and never really knowing.
So, is the consensus this is a good idea, as long as with the bid we also include the contributions of plant unions to elections?
ReplyDeleteFrankly, while I suspect that there is a "political" color to extremely large contracts—e.g., the TFX of my younger years—I think the DoD professional acquisition force is pretty clean, earmarks aside.
I am for rejecting the whole idea.
Regards — Cliff
It's chilling to me that people feel that secret political contributions towards government officials who in turn may award contracts to such contributors is something about which no effort should be made to illuminate. Let's say, as Neal suggests, that no positive effect will ensue, and it's futile. Do we still decline to do what is right just because we are feeling jaded and defeated by graft and corruption.
ReplyDeleteCliff, I respect that you "think" the DoD is "pretty clean", but I, for one, would like a law on the books that can be used to prosecute further those who are caught with hands in cookie jars. Like with Capone and tax evasion, it may be the single solitary thing we have left with which to convict.
This sort of opinion, by the way, is yet one more reason why otherwise reasonable people fear Republicans, and for good reason. The whole premise reeks.
And, I should add in the interests of equal time, Democrats. Clearly the filth spills on both sides of the aisle, and don't tell me you don't believe there's filth there in government contracts.
ReplyDeleteMy only experience on this contracting issue is from inside the belly of the beast. I did R&D contracting for the Air Force for a while and I didn't see any "dirty" activity on the part of the Government. Yes, I did see the engineers on the project side of the effort abusing the contractor, but that was not the contractor buying his way in. Since I retired from the Air Force and been on the contractor side I have seen what I thought were some dumb decisions, but nothing corrupt. In fact, I have seen what I see as silly efforts on the part of the Government to bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of a corrupt system. My most recent example is the proposals for an update to the Air Force Air Operations Center. Lockheed Martin created a whole new organization, firewalled off from their ongoing performers on the original contract (and we at DRC, as a subcontractor, did likewise) and yet the Air Force, toward the end of a long and costly proposal effort, said that while LockMart could submit a bid, it would not be evaluated—concerns over Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI).
ReplyDeleteAnd, the fact that Darleen Druyun went to jail shows that there are laws in place and those laws are enforced.
Regards — Cliff
I think that the issue as presented in the article is properly visualized at the "strategic" level of operations. What Cliff discusses is much more at the "tactical" level of activity.
ReplyDeleteHaving managed the commander's action group for the commander of a major AF acquisition center, and then having spent now over 14 years directly and indirectly involved in DoD contractor activities, I can see two different perspectives, one definitely impacting the other.
The "thought" behind the proposed ruling pertains more to influence peddling and buying at the national political level, with the implementers of decisions made at the cabinet and immediate A staff level.
There are numerous examples of political figures who have been supported by various private "interests" for an expected quid pro quo. This is not to say that at the acquisition management decision making level that the word is to throw a competition. Rather, the decision may well be completely avoided by directive from on high.
As a murky example...and no particular blame or suspicion leveled at the Army per se, but the Future Combat System program had numerous critics within the Army...as the system was presented...and in spite of protests to the contrary, the system was moved ahead. Ultimately, it was terminated for all practical purposes, but not until billions were spent and select BIG defense contractors benefited. That some members of Congress benefited by providing the benefits by "influencing" the direction of the program evolution is unquestioned. They did. A "note" to the SecDef from Senator Sixpack or Representative Rumciccalote expressing "strong support" in the funding and evolution of a particular program is worth its weight....literally...in gold. And, this "interest" can be multiplied by deals made in the chamber cloakrooms in Congress.
We have had weapons systems made that were not the military's first choice and first choice weapon systems cancelled in favor of other systems.
Mind you....it is NOT at the professional level that this occurs. It is at the POLITICAL level. And the problem with "transparency" at that level is that there isn't any.
I'm not saying that the electorate should throw in the towel and just accept it. Quite the opposite, but this kind of rule making only punishes some hapless bureaucrat in the sub-basement of the power palace and diverts attention away from the real culprits.
This year's budget cycle should validate my posit. Even the vaunted "tea party" people have ensured that their respective constituency is well cared for....EVEN...if only one of the constituents benefits.
Agreed, Neal, about needing to focus the flashlight on the highest levels. You sum up exactly my thoughts regarding Cliff's example. The real target needs to be the top-level lawmaking/contract assignment. I do respect your thoughts about not hanging relatively insignificant bureaucrats out to dry as scapegoats while the real criminals walk free. My take, unfortunately, is that you have to scour the filth from the outside in, and as more and more of the lower level people are caught in the web, the more likely they are to reveal the larger truths they know about the larger dirty deals. (Just my opinion, anyway--I don't think yours is any less reasonable).
ReplyDeleteI think that using a broad brush to tar all in Government Contracting, at all levels, is a little harsh. Yes, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has been corrupt with regard to software contracts. A few years ago I helped along a software project where I worked with the loan of an HP PDA (a big deal at the time). We were bidding for and winning in Colorado, Ohio, Texas and some Pacific Northwest State. The software was to help track child welfare efforts, going under the name SACWIS. Naive me, I asked why we didn't market in our home state. I was told that it was all tied up in politics. Thus, the current trial is no surprise to me.
ReplyDeleteBut, we, as a Company, were out there teaming and competing across the country, and winning. There appears to be fairly free and open competition at some levels of Government and in some locations.
Regards — Cliff