Worse than a Government for Sale

The Bush Administration's HUD Secretary, Alphonso Jackson, apparently thought that now it is okay if now government contracts, paid for with taxpayer money, are awarded based on the partisan political persuasiosn of the recipient. This is extraordinary. 48C.F.R. 3.101-1 states

"Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and, except
as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none. Transactions relating to the expenditure of
public funds require the highest degree of public trust and an impeccable
standard of conduct"

In canceling a government contract because the CEO of the recipient firm did not approve of the President, Jackson seemingly broke the boundaries of even a textbook alteration of the application here, from "complete impartiality" to acknowledged and complete partiality.

The thought process openly acknowledged by the Secretary is perhaps more alarming. As quoted here:

"He didn't get the contract. Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the
president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

So the government should reward contracts as a means of raising funds to support the same party in power that is rewarding the contracts in the first place? Making sure to specifically avoid accomplishing the opposite, instead of simply being impartial as the law calls for, is exactly the same thing.Corruption is one thing, but open and unrecognized corruption?

A few days later, as noted in the Washington Post, Jackson changed his story, completely.