Vol. 75/No. 22      June 6, 2011

Entitled “Disclosure of Political Spending by Government Contractors,” Obama’s proposed order—like other “disclosure” requirements pushed by liberals since the 1970s—is packaged as an aid to greater “transparency” about big business interests in the United States. In reality, such measures—whether legislation, executive orders, or court rulings—provide another weapon to be wielded against working people by the capitalist state that serves the interests of the wealthy ruling families who own and control “big business.”

Claiming to promote “the integrity of the federal contracting system,” the order makes public the political activity of businesses and executives through a “centralized, searchable, sortable, downloadable and machine readable format” on government websites.

The proposed disclosure order conveniently exempts those Obama considers key to his 2012 reelection prospects. These include trade unions whose class-collaborationist officialdoms, the administration hopes, will once again spend tens of millions on his campaign, as they did in 2008. Also exempt are “grant recipients” from the well-heeled, self-ordained “meritocratic” layers of professors and foundation personnel among whom Obama himself was groomed.

In an article headlined “When Capitalists Need Socialist Workers” in the May 6 National Review, which describes itself as “America’s conservative magazine,” Stephen Hoersting writes that Obama’s proposed order opens the door to attacks against those seeking government contracts who contribute to political candidates and causes the administration—or others—oppose.

Hoersting notes that the Socialist Workers Party has fought—and won—an exemption from such disclosure regulations on federal, state, and local levels.

The party’s fight against turning over a “hit list” to the government and other anti-working-class forces by disclosing the names of its contributors and those who do business with it has been waged for some four decades.

In 1973 the party filed a federal lawsuit against spying and harassment by the FBI, CIA, Military Intelligence, and other federal agencies. It waged a decade-long political and legal campaign, forcing out thousands of pages of files showing how the government carried out systematic spying, harassment, and disruption against the party and its members and supporters because of their views and activities. Through this campaign, the SWP exposed evidence dating back to the 1930s, when its members helped lead militant working-class battles across the Upper Midwest and fought against the U.S. imperialist war drive.

The party won in federal court, with the judge ruling in 1986 that the government must stop targeting its members and supporters.

As the socialists were launching this effort some 40 years ago, however, Congress in 1974 adopted legislation forcing political parties and other groups to turn over lists of contributors and vendors during election campaigns. The law, making these names publicly accessible, had been vigorously pushed above all by Common Cause—a major proponent of Obama’s order today—as well as other liberal groups.

The Socialist Workers Party opposes all such disclosure laws or regulations—used against any individual or organization—as an assault on the political rights of working people. The party launched a fight against the 1974 disclosure provisions and has won exemptions for its election campaigns since the late 1970s, both from the Federal Election Commission and in federal court.

Since 1990 the SWP has had to fight again every six years to renew the exemption. Each time it has presented substantial evidence that the party and its supporters continue to be targeted for attacks and discrimination by individuals and government authorities.

Other groups, from a variety of political viewpoints, have not been able to win such exemptions and have seen their members and supporters subjected to threats, assaults, and retaliation. One example was in 2008, when contributors to an effort opposing Proposition 8 in California, which would have legalized same-sex marriage, were targeted because of their political views.

In 2009 the Federal Election Commission extended the SWP’s exemption again, but shortened it to four years this time. Steven Walther, the commission’s chair, argued that socialism is now “more mainstream.” That means “more scrutiny is in order,” he argued.

Hoersting points out that the only Supreme Court judge who argues disclosure is unconstitutional is Clarence Thomas. In a lone dissent from part of a 2010 court decision, Thomas said disclosure requirements “enable private citizens and elected officials to implement political strategies specifically calculated to curtail campaign-related activity and prevent the lawful, peaceful exercise of First Amendment rights.”

“When American capitalists need the protection of Socialist Workers,” Hoersting ends his piece, “it’s time the [Supreme] Court revisited its precedents.”  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home