So, you want to contribute to a political candidate?

Welcome to the continuing beta testbed  of the Government Services Insider Web service.

The following appeared today on the Washington Technology Web site today, under the byline of  the Insider’s editor and publisher:

The Supreme Court decision issued on January 21 makes the head spin with visions of apparent opportunity, as well as major corporate damage.  The ruling rolls back prior federal law that bars companies from contributing to candidates from their general funds.

The popular concern is that well funded companies can do more than influence elections; they might buy them.  Of sectors that might just try for big advantage, financial services, healthcare, and energy come immediately to mind.

But what about government contractors?  Companies could bankroll candidates who fund, authorize, and judge the programs and spending of   their companies’ federal client agencies.  One could imagine that the companies could literally shape the composition of Congress, influencing the nature and extent of oversight and procurement legislation.

But that aggressive vision comes with a grizzly set of risks.  What if a company-funded congressman or senator gets voted out of office?  What about a  whole administration?   What are the odds of payback?  What if you get in an arms-race of political funding of a candidate with your top competitors?  And do you think Wall Street financial analysts and institutional investors (e.g., CALPERS) might care whom you fund?  And then there are the various ethics police.

It’s easy to imagine some industry players who don’t want the change.  Small business, clearly, could be disadvantaged by free-spending big companies with pots of money for political candidate contributions.  Companies with activist, conservatively ethical boards, plus watchful institutional investors just might be queasy –and vocal–about making political contributions.

Selected Congressmen are already gearing up legislative proposals to shut the door on company contributions to candidates.  And the president has already vocalized his displeasure with the Supreme Court ruling.

The White House actually has a ready-to-use rope to strangle candidate contributions from contractors.  It is in plain sight, and would require no Congressional action.  Over multiple administrations the government has put in place policies and regulations and progressively strong enforcement of organizational conflict of interest regulations.  Isn’t a cash contribution to a political candidate by an organization that would benefit the most obvious of organizational self-interest?  Try saying:  “organizational conflict of interest.”

Let lawyers slug it out, but we think that label can be made to stick.  Then companies shrug their shoulders and disclose the organizational conflict of interest.  Contributions would be a matter of public record anyway.

But it’s then up to the customer agency to determine if the OCOI is acceptable and needs mitigation. That’s an interesting hand grenade for an executive agency to pick up and examine.

Imagine the analysis. Connect the dots regarding a prospective contract award to the company making contributions to a new or incumbent political candidate and with the company’s present and future business interests and prospects.  Be sure to triangulate the candidate with his/her committee assignments and ties with a federal facility or agency program or employee labor unions.   Then, make a judgment about whether it is permissible for the contractor to both fund candidates and accept federal contracts.

We’ll let the administration, the Congress, and the courts decide.  Meanwhile there will be a new spectacle of the usual acquisition pundits and skilled industry lobbyists doing their thing.  This is just what we need in the federal acquisition community, another sideshow that will drain valuable time and attention from the many persistent and vexing issues, while threatening the interests of both  customer and company alike.