Should there be a law on presidental(and VP) appearance of impropriety?

[7th_Sephiroth]

Poll question: Should there be a law on presidental(and VP) appearance of impropriety?

example: Vice President Dick Cheney has awarded the Halliburton company, and its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown, And Root Billions of dollard in service contracts, without bidding on them. Cheney used to be the chairman of the board for Halliburton, should a law be passed forcing the offices of the president, vuce president Attorney general ect. to atleast hold the appearance of impropriety, and make cheney's actions as vice president (wich has cost tax payers billions more than contract bids would have) Illeagal.

[rpannier]

1. Too Vague

The appearance of impropriety is too vague a term and can be manipulated by anyone. I would prefer Conflict of Interest.

[7th_Sephiroth]

3. it also would stop things

like cheney's hunting trip with scalia before he was to preside over a case involving him (how'd that turn out by the way)

[bryant69]

4. I agree

Anybody could manipulate that languaged to get rid of anybody they didn't like, and the majority party would use it unceasingly.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[7th_Sephiroth]

5. true

but it DOES depend on the wording of the legal text. God i wish our laws werent picked over by hundreads of partisan assholes

[Cheswick2.0]

2. Cheney is still getting money from Haliburton

I think giving big contracts or favors to campaign contributors should also be a no no. Unfortunately so many democrats are doing or who have done the same thing that it is almost impossible to imagine a time when this will not be the way business is carried out.
Look for democrats who do not participate or who talk about taking corporate money out of the process and work to get those people elected. I think that is the only answer.

[Red State Rebel]

7. I've read this before, but never heard

What money does it get from them and why? I am suprised this is allowed under any circumstance!

[7th_Sephiroth]

8. it was investigated thuroughly

by the fair and impartital Chief Grand Inquisitor John Ashkroft, and found that it does not violate the law

[Blue Wally]

6. Probably an "open-ended" contract

Halliburton (their KBR subsidiary) probably has one of the "open-ended" government services contracts to provide infrastructure support for US Army overseas operations. The contract may have been let during the Bush I or Clinton administrations, since KBR is one of the few companies involved in this type of business. Thses contracts usually have provisions for modifications so that if the Army needs infrastructure support for say 10,000 men in Lower Slobovia, all that is necessary is a contract modification to the existing contract which does not require new bidding. Lots of the government services contracts are written this way. In many cases, the contractor won't press for the last 1% or so of the funds at the end of the contract in order to keep the contract "open" to allow futher "mods" which are in essence new contracts for new work, but which can be executed quickly without new bids.