In July, several government agencies, including the Department of Defense and NASA, issued new, interim regulations that will apply to many companies that work on government contracts. The rules are part of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act signed in 2006, what was "intended to empower the American taxpayer with information that may be used to demand greater fiscal discipline from both executive and legislative branches of the Government," according to the Federal Register.

To achieve this, yet another Federal agency, the Office of Management and Budget, is required a produce a website that discloses information on Federal contracts. Specifically, the website will provide the names and total compensation for the five most highly paid executives of companies working on government contracts. Between now and September 30, 2010, the rules apply to prime contracts worth $20 million or more. From October through the end of February 2011, it also applies to contracts of $550,000 and up. After that, contracts of $25,000 or more are included.

The disclosure regulations apply to many types of businesses, including those that are minority-, veteran- or women-owned. However, their annual revenue from government contracts needs to be at least $25 million or more, and this amount needs to represent at least 80 percent of their overall revenue.

Some companies are exempt. The rules won't apply to contracts that are classified, nor those made with individuals. Companies that already report this info to the SEC don't need to duplicate their current reporting efforts.

Not surprisingly, few companies are thrilled about the requirements. "There's a lot of consternation on the part of the contracting community," says Catherine Kunz, an attorney with Crowell & Moring in Washington D.C.

In part, that's due to some confusion about just what the regulations will require. For instance, say a subsidiary of a larger firm wins a contract. It's not clear whether that division will need to disclose its execs' compensation, if the parent company already is doing so.

More significantly, however, execs see more paperwork for themselves with a questionable payoff for either their firms or the taxpayers. Of course, the top brass at most companies do quite well. Even so, their salaries usually account for a small fraction of the overall costs within government contracts. It's hard to say that these disclosures alone will lead to more cost-effective government.

That said, most companies probably will go along - reluctantly - with the regulations. Kunz says she hasn't heard of any companies changing their compensation plans because of it, nor of any that have decided not to do business with the government. For many contractors, government work makes up too large a part of their business to toss aside. And, like any customer, the government can ask certain things of its vendors.