House Republicans, and more than a few Democrats, have taken a series of votes to kill a proposed executive order that would shine more light on dark money electioneering contributions made by recipients of government contracts.

The votes are remarkable for a number of reasons. First, there is no executive order. Opponents of disclosure are responding to a draft EO that was leaked to the press in April, resulting in an outcry from the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber’s allies on Capitol Hill responded with amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act as well as three appropriations bills, (Homeland Security, Department of Defense and Energy and Water) that would prevent agencies from using their appropriations to implement “any rule, regulation or executive order” regarding the disclosure political contributions.

Even more remarkable is the looking glass way the lawmakers have turned transparency on its head, pretending that it would result in a “pay-to-play” system that would somehow advantage government contractors who contribute to Democrats.

One of the most important features of the draft EO is that it would require any entity bidding for a government contract to disclose contributions it made to third parties—like the Chamber or other shadowy nonprofit organizations—when those contributions are intended to pay for electioneering communications. Shining a light on this type of secret, dark money spending is a critical first step to restoring accountability to the political process.

But the Chamber has convinced a majority of the House that allowing voters to scrutinize who is paying for political ads will somehow corrupt the process of the awarding of government contracts. In fact, the opposite is true. The current opaque regime allows potential government contractors who want to garner favor with decision-makers in Congress or the executive branch to make secret campaign expenditures that only the decision-makers will know about. So pay-to-play, the alleged concern of those opposed to the EO, continues unabated and in secret.

The other canard opponents of the draft EO like to use is that the disclosure requirements are burdensome or unconstitutional. But the receipt of taxpayer dollars in the form of a federal contract always comes with conditions, including a variety of reporting requirements. Disclosure of contributions is no more burdensome than any other check imposed on potential contractors, and, as the Supreme Court noted, does not conflict with the first amendment.

Responsibility for making campaign expenditures transparent has been shunted to the White House by an activist Supreme Court that allowed dark money into our elections and an inactive Congress that has failed to shine a light on it. The House’s preemptive strikes against the EO should not derail the President’s efforts to ensure that there is transparency in the federal contracting process.

The Center for Public Integrity's iWatchNews reports that former Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., has a new gig working for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, traveling around the country with former George W. Bush chief of staff Andrew Card. Political Wire plays telephone with a Politico version of Public Integrity's story, and ends up with the headline "Bayh to Become a Lobbyist."

At Sunlight, we've argued that for all intents and purposes, Bayh, a "senior adviser with a role in public policy" for Apollo Group, along with quite a lengthy list of other former Washington officials, is a "non-lobbyist lobbyist," defined here as someone who walks and quacks but does not register as a lobbyist. From what little information is available about the Chamber job, it appears Bayh won't have to register for them either.

Reading over the memo from Tom Donahue, the Chamber of Commerce's president and CEO, describing the role of Bayh and Card, it's not clear that either will have to register as lobbyists. Donahue writes that the pair "will carry a bipartisan message on regulatory reform out around the country through a 'road show' of speeches, events, and media appearances at various local venues." We called the Chamber of Commerce to ask if Bayh and his road show partner Card will register to lobby; we'll update when we hear something.

During the 2010 midterm election David and Charles Koch, owners of the massive energy conglomerate Koch Industries, became the face of secret donors to a new set of political groups spawned by the controversial Citizens United Supreme Court ruling. Koch Industries is also a longtime government contractor receiving $85 million in contracts over the past eleven years. These two facts may not seem to overlap, but if President Obama signs a draft executive order leaked this week Koch Industries and a large number of the nation’s companies would face the prospect of having to disclose their now-secret contributions to political efforts when they seek new federal contracts.

The centerpiece of the draft order, which requires disclosure of a variety of contributions that are already disclosed to the Federal Election Commission, is its requirement that any organization bidding on a federal contract disclose contributions made by the organization, its subsidiaries, and its directors to any third party group intending on using that money for independent expenditures or electioneering communications.

The order specifically targets a disclosure loophole created by the Citizens United ruling. The ruling opened the door for a whole host of organizations, including 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations, to run electoral advertisements without disclosing their donors to the public. The most notable of these groups is Crossroads GPS, a conservative nonprofit that spent more than $15 million on advertisements opposing Democratic candidates for office in the 2010 midterm election.

Under the order donations to Crossroads GPS and other groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Americans for Prosperity would have to be disclosed by companies seeking federal contracts.

The order is an attempt by the White House to do what Congress could not do when it failed to pass a legislative response to Citizens United, known as the DISCLOSE Act, at the end of last year.

By applying to all organizations submitting a bid for contract the order would cover a huge swath of the country's companies. JPMorgan Chase, Exxon Mobil, General Electric, and the aforementioned Koch Industries all hold government contracts. Thirty-three of the forty-one companies listed in the top 100 campaign contributors over the past two decades are recipients of federal contracts. According to USASpending.gov, there are 129,083 recipients of federal contracts, although many of these may be duplicates.

Even News Corporation, the owner of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post, is a government contractor. The executive order would require both the company and its owner Rupert Murdoch to disclose contributions to political groups. Last year News Corporation contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, which already discloses its donors, and, according to a New York Times investigation, another $1 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which does not disclose its donors.

That Times investigation uncovered a number of contributors to the Chamber’s political efforts, most of whom also hold government contracts and would face new disclosure rules under the potential executive order. In addition to News Corporation, Dow Chemical, Aegon, Chevron Texaco, Prudential Financial, and Alpha Technologies all contributed to the Chamber of Commerce in recent years while holding government contracts.

While the order would certainly not apply retroactively these companies would have to disclose their political giving for the two previous years if they sought a new contract from the government.

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., criticized the draft Executive Order for stifling speech and failing to cover unions that support the President and his party, “This order is a purely political act offered under the benign label of disclosure. The order would not impose the same requirements on the labor unions or other organizations who support the President.” While many unions receive federal grants there are few receiving federal contracts.

One notable exception is the nation’s largest federation of labor unions, the AFL-CIO, which received small contracts from the Department of Labor as recently as last year. USASpending.gov lists two purchase orders from 2010 for contracts with the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute. The contracts were with the Department of Labor and Department of Transportation. The draft order does not distinguish between types of contracts, thus any future contract with the AFL-CIO would trigger the same disclosure requirements applied to corporations with contracts.

Some companies already voluntarily disclose contributions to political groups on their corporate websites, although most of the time the information is dated, poorly defined, or not explained.

General Dynamics lists contributions to political nonprofits, but does not provide names. Instead, the defense contractor lists $125,000 in contributions to three 501(c)(4) nonprofits.

The top recipient of contract dollars from the federal government, Lockheed Martin, lists contributions it made to trade associations in 2010 including a $50,000 contribution to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Lockheed states, “We believe that the non-deductible portion of our dues is for trade association lobbying.”

Northrop Grumman and Raytheon Corporation detail their contributions to candidates and 527s, but do not explain a policy for contributions to other politically active organizations. Meanwhile, Pfizer releases an annual report on its political action committee contributions, which does not list contributions to nonprofits or trade associations.

In December Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa sent letters to 142 organizations soliciting suggestions for regulations that were cumbersome and threatened jobs and company bottom lines. Those organizations included some of the biggest lobbying forces in Washington and, also, some of the bigger contributors to both Republicans and Democrats.

The 142 organizations combined to contribute $11.8 million to Republican candidates and $9.6 million to Democratic candidates through their respective political action committees in 2010. The biggest contributors to Republican candidates were the National Association of Home Builders with $1.285 million and the Associated Builder and Contractors Association with $1.174 million. Top contributors to Democrats included the Credit Union National Association withe $1.241 million and the American Hospital Association with $1.152 million.

Forty-two of the 142 organizations spent over $1 million lobbying in Washington in 2010. These included major lobbying forces like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($100.21 million), General Electric ($39.29 million), Generic Pharmaceutical Association ($18.581 million), American Hospital Association ($17.62 million), Edison Electric Institute ($13.08 million), ExxonMobil ($12.4 million), Business Roundtable ($8.794 million), and National Association of Manufacturers ($8.62 million).

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has asked all organizations that have received letters from Issa to disclose their responses to the Oversight Committee chairman. So far, fifty-six organizations have disclosed their responses to Issa's solicitation.

The Chamber of Commerce, the nation's biggest lobbying spender, also spent approximately $32 million on political advertising during the 2010 midterm election. The Chamber spent over $30 million on ads opposing Democrats and supporting Republicans and $1.8 million on supporting Democrats.

Forty-nine of the 142 organizations reported no PAC contributions and no lobbying expenses in 2010.

Below is a Socrata chart including all PAC contributions and lobbying numbers for the 142 organizations solicited for information from Chairman Issa. Data comes from both the Senate web site and the Center for Responsive Politics:

Over the last several weeks, the Colorado Senate race became the poster race of the outrageous amounts of money pouring into politics from outside groups, attracting more than $32 million in spending--more than any other race in the country. A close look at the data reveals some telling points on how this political spending worked on the ground.

What was new this year in Colorado was not outside spending. In 2008, the Colorado Senate race also attracted money from outside groups, such as 527 political organizations and labor unions. And many of the groups spending in 2010 also were in the fray in 2008, albeit some wearing different legal costumes. A good chunk of the money spent this year was in the form of "dark money"--money spent by groups that do not disclose donors; however, the major group doing so also took out its wallet in 2008.

What was new was a substantially higher amount of spending--$32 million vs. $20.4 million; a harder edge on many of the group’s ads; and that groups could (and did) raise their cash directly from corporations and unions for such ads.

Here are some notable trends from Colorado:

• The biggest gorilla in the room. American Crossroads, the “super PAC” founded this year with the help of GOP strategist Karl Rove, bet big in Colorado. A creature of the new regime after the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, American Crossroads reported spending $5.9 million on independent expenditures in the Senate race to help Buck’s candidacy. That’s more than twice as much as any other non-party organization, and one-and-a-half times as much as Ken Buck raised for his own campaign. It wasn’t all that long ago that this kind of money was enough to win a Senate seat. The group has raised its cash from a mix of wealthy individuals and corporations—the latter of which would have been impossible before Citizens United.
• Lots of “Dark money.” Some $5.4 million of the money flowing into Colorado was “dark money”—money spent by organizations that do not publicly disclose donors to the Federal Election Commission. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a 501(C)6 organization, reported spending $2.4 million on issue ads. Back in 2008, the group reported $1.5 million. The conservative Americans for Job Security, a 501(c)6, reported spending $976,000 on issue ads in the race (a substantial portion in the primary). Women's Voices Women Vote Action Fund, a 501(c)4, reported spending $878,500. Technically the money went to issue ads rather than to oppose or support a candidate. However this clip is openly critical of Buck for saying that voters should choose him because he doesn’t “wear high heels.”  Nonprofit groups like these have been emboldened this year to spend more aggressively on political activity; some members of Congress and watchdog groups have called for investigations.
• Meet the new folks, (sort of) the same as the old folks. The NEA Advocacy Fund reported making $1.9 million on hard-hitting independent expenditures opposing Buck. The group’s main source of cash appears to be its parent organization, the National Education Association. Spending on direct advocacy ads funded by unions would not have been possible before Citizens United. While the union also reported spending big in the 2008 Senate race here--$925,000—most of that money went to electioneering communications, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Ditto the conservative Club for Growth Action, a new super PAC that reported spending $997,000 on issue ads. In 2008, most of the money reported by the group under a different guise went to issue advocacy. Overall, 15 out of 22 of the most generous outside spenders in the Colorado race used their cash for independent expenditures rather than issue ads.

What effect all this spending had on the actual outcome of the race is debatable. Bennet raised far more cash for his campaign fund than Buck did for his. The independent expenditures favored Buck, but not by a large margin. In the end, the Bennet’s victory was decided by fewer than 16,000 votes.

But one thing is for sure: the onslaught of spending here was like going back to Colorado’s Wild West roots. All these groups were grabbing for the biggest gun in town, and the sheriff wasn’t paying much attention. And it was just practice for what we can expect come 2012. As goes Colorado, so goes the nation.

Denver, Colorado...Two kinds of non-disclosure popped up in my half hour of TV news viewing this morning in Denver, ground zero for this year's outside spending spree on political ads. One was an issue ad by the Chamber of Commerce, which famously does not disclose its donors; the other was an issue ad by American Action Network, which not only does not disclose its donors, but also has yet to report its spending in Colorado to the Federal Election Commission.

(Edited to add: As of October 27, the American Action Network's (AAN) spending in Colorado now show up on FEC reports: $725,000 dated October 12. Also on October 27, the Denver Post reported that channel 9 (NBC) is pulling the AAN ad recorded in this diary for false claims.)

Of nine ads viewed in half an hour on channel 7, ABC, two were funded by outside groups, three by party committees, and four by candidates' campaign funds. Here is what I saw:

8:28 a.m. The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) takes one of its many hits on Sen. Michael Bennet. This time the ad says "Bennet is pushing for Obama's over-reaching agenda." The Denver Post referred to him with the phrase "not enough spine." The NRSC has reported spending nearly $4 million on ads opposing Bennet, which is more than Buck has collected for his campaign fund. Sunlight CAM link to ads mentioning Bennet here.

8:41 a.m. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) goes after Ryan Frazier, who is challenging incumbent Democrat Rep. Ed Perlmutter, claiming that in his business dealings he's helped send jobs overseas. The DCCC has recently started spending in this district, which has recently become competitive, at the expense of helping Rep. Betsy Markey, who is facing off against Cory Gardner. See Sunlight CAM links for Frazier here.

8:42 a.m.  Here's the issue ad from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, criticizing Michael Bennet for voting for "Obama-care." "Bigger government, less choice, more pain." "Call Michael Bennet and tell him that's not the kind of change we were looking for." The Chamber of Commerce has reported spending $1.9 million on the Bennet race; the group does not publicly disclose its donors.

Next up is the American Action Network (AAN), with an issue ad on Perlmutter. A woman appears on a computer screen; she's skyping her friend. "You have to check out the article I just sent you. Apparently convicted rapists can get Viagra paid for by the new health care bill....Yep. I mean Viagra for rapists? With my tax dollars?" The viewer is asked to call Perlmutter and ask him to repeal the health care bill.  As I reported over here, AAN has yet to disclose its spending in Colorado, and, as a 501(c)4 organization, also does not have to publicly disclose its donors. See AAN ads on Sunlight CAM here.

8:48 a.m. A tried and true ad from the Cory Gardner campaign, which I've seen many times before, saying that Markey has voted with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "94 percent of the time."

8:49 a.m. An ad from the Bennet campaign criticizes Ken Buck for supporting sending jobs overseas.

8:53 a.m. The NRSC repeats its "not enough spine" ad about Bennet. (See: 8:28 a.m.)

8:54 a.m. Another old one from the Markey v. Gardner matchup, an ad from the Markey campaign urging viewer not to listen to the attacks on her. She says she's got "zero tolerance" for Wall Street bailouts and voted to stop Congressional payraises.

8:58 a.m. Bennet goes for cute with this ad featuring his daughters, who are working on "getting out the vote" for his campaign. They offer to help out an older woman and give her a ride in a wagon.

Denver, CO--I'm watching political ads airing on television news every morning here in the swing state of Colorado and following the money that put them there.

Today's crop from 35 minutes of viewing, this time for Denver's channel 9, the local NBC affiliate: ten ads total; four issue ads by outside groups including what appear to be new forays into Colorado races by the Chamber of Commerce and the NEA Advocacy Fund; three independent expenditure ads from Republican party committees, and three ads bought by candidates' campaign committees. Several of the ads are repeats from yesterday's viewing session.

8:26 a.m. Ken Buck wants to take away money from schools, cut teachers, increase class sizes. The NEA Advocacy Fund paid for the ad.  It appears to be an issue ad, as opposed to an independent expenditure--according to my notes, it doesn't specifically say to vote against Buck (But the ad went fast and I can't find a copy on the Internet). No expenditures by the NEA Advocacy Fund, which is associated with the National Education Association, the teacher's union, have been reported yet for Colorado, so I'm probably seeing one of the first runs of the ad. (Edited to add: since writing this earlier in the day, the Fund is now reporting $1.4 million in spending against Buck.) The NEA Advocacy Fund has filed paperwork with the FEC to be an "independent expenditure only" committee that can take unlimited contributions from corporations or unions, a new kind of entity made possible by the Supreme Court's Citizens United. The group also files as a political group known as a 527 with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); its latest disclosure reports, which cover the period through September 30, show an infusion of $475,000 from--the National Education Association. Sunlight CAM link here.

8:29 a.m. Sen. Michael Bennet wants me to know that special interests like big oil and insurance companies think Colorado is for sale. They are spending millions to elect his opponent, Ken Buck. Colorado is not for sale, and neither is Michael Bennet. The ad is paid for by the Michael Bennet campaign. Sunlight CAM link here.

8:35 a.m. Ken Buck was investigated for ethics, he let a gun dealer off the hook. I saw this same ad yesterday on CBS; the issue ad is part of a reported $730,000 ad buy by Public Campaign Action Fund's Campaign Money Watch, a group that advocates for public financing of elections; the most recent filings by the 527 political group with the IRS do not reveal any significant donations. Sunlight CAM link here.

8:36 a.m.: A campaign ad from the Ed Perlmutter campaign claiming his opponent, Ryan Frazier, had a poor attendance record in local office and that his company helps outsource jobs. The Democratic incumbent, Perlmutter has more cash on hand than Frazier to pay for such ads, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The Cook Political Report rates the seat as "lean Democratic." Sunlight CAM link here.

No break--straight into an issue ad on Democrat Rep. Betsy Markey, paid for by the Chamber of Commerce. We told her we needed jobs, and she didn't listen, says the narrator. She voted for government take over of health care, and now she wants an energy tax. "Call Betsy Markey and tell her to listen." The Chamber, recently under attack by Democrats for allegedly taking foreign money for its political operations, has not yet reported spending any money on the Markey ad, so this must be new. Sunlight CAM link here. (Edited to add: the Chamber is now reporting $250,ooo in expenditures against Markey.)

8:42 a.m. "One vote makes a difference," says the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)  and Michael Bennet's "deciding" votes brought us expensive policies. This is the same ad I saw yesterday.  So far the NRSC has reported spending $1.6 million against Bennet. Look for Bennet ads on Sunlight CAM here.

8:43 a.m. An ad from the Ryan Frazier campaign attacking his opponent, Perlmutter. Frazier says he wants to create jobs and Perlmutter hasn't. I saw this ad yesterday, too. Frazier ads on Sunlight CAM are here.

Straight into what appears to be an issue ad on Michael Bennet by American Crossroads, which has benefited from the fundraising prowess of GOP operative Karl Rove. The ad focuses on a "Wall Street gamble" that Bennet promoted with the local school board that cost taxpayers; Bennet also took money for his campaign from these same Wall Street bankers." Michael Bennet should work for us, not Wall Street." American Crossroads has reported spending $3.4 million all opposing Bennet. See Bennet ads on Sunlight CAM here.

8:55 a.m. Another ad from yesterday: the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) piece blasting Democrat Betsy Markey. There's one party that has absolute power in Washington, and Markey has voted the "Pelosi party line." She's gone "too far, too fast." "Replace Betsy Markey." Sunlight CAM link here.

9:00 a.m. The "One vote makes a difference ad" that ran fifteen minutes before attacking Michael Bennet, from the NRSC.

Tomorrow morning I'll tune my channel to ABC and report on what I see.

"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." -- Teddy Roosevelt

The United States Chamber of Commerce wants to be in the arena. They are in the arena, spending nearly $20 million so far on independent advertising for and against candidates for Congress, and getting their hands dirty. The only problem is that they're spending money given to them by donors who are not in the arena and not getting their hands dirty. These hidden organizations are circumventing the real nitty-gritty of democratic debate by finding a proxy to fight their battles for them. In essence, they're cowards.

And now the Chamber of Commerce is making this defense for them. Bruce Josten, chief lobbyist for the Chamber, told ABC News' Jake Tapper:

What this administration wants is a list of who the companies are who are contributors, and we saw last year, Jake, why, when we very publicly ran ads against the Patients Protections and Affordable Care Act, quoting the CBO, quoting the head of CMS, the Centers for Medicare Services, that it would not in fact bend the cost curve down, that it would bend the cost curve up as they testified before the senate finance committee, there was an attempt to try and find out who were the corporations that were contributing to that effort. When some of those corporate names were divulged, not by us, by others, what did they receive? They received protests, they received threats, they were intimidated, they were harassed, they had to hire additional security, they were recipients of a host of proxies leveled at those companies that had nothing to do with the purpose of those companies. So we know what the purpose here is. It's to harass and intimidate. Much like we've seen in California with ballot initiatives -- when the proponents of ballot initiatives’ names have been divulged to the public -- those people were harassed, they were threatened with violence and they were intimidated.

This coward's argument is being adopted by more and more powerful forces. The powerful, the wealthy, are hiding behind a cloak of secrecy out of fear that citizens may discover their political positions and hold them accountable. Shiver.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie and now the highest spending lobby in Washington are all making the argument that those who choose to join in the political fray and express themselves politically, through the spending of money, lots of money, should be shielded from the consequence of expression: debate.

Another Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, who I have quoted before, made the best case against this argument for cowering:

There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self-governance. Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.

In other words: If you can't stand the heat, get your ass out the kitchen.