- news
- THURSDAY APRIL 26 2007 11:00 PM
White House Continues to Violate the Hatch Act

The Hatch Act is a New Deal-era federal law that was initially passed to help stem the spread of communism and patronage within the federal government. It prohibits federal employees from engaging in a specific list of political activities. Among them are the following prohibitions
These federal and D.C. employees may not
engage in political activity while:
-on duty
-in a government office
-wearing an official uniform
-using a government vehicle
-wear partisan political buttons on duty
The penalties for violating the Hatch Act are not criminal, but they are clear and stiff.
An employee who violates the Hatch Act shall be removed from their position, and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay the employee or individual.
The reason Im bringing this up is because for the second time in three weeks, a scandal has erupted over obvious violations of the Hatch Act. First it was the administrations use of Republican National Committee e-mail addresses for official federal business. Never one to stop while they were ahead, the White House admitted today that they had as many as 20 briefings for federal employees on certain GOP election prospects while on government time.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said briefings were held at other federal agencies besides the GSA, for a total of about 20 most in 2006 and a couple in 2007. They were conducted by White House political director Sara Taylor or Jennings, her deputy. It had been known that other briefings had been held, but not how many.
Others were held in previous years as well, but Stanzel said the White House hasn't kept a count of how many.
Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino said no laws were broken and that the White House counsel's office signed off on the effort.
"It's not unlawful and it wasn't unusual for informational briefings to be given," Perino said. "There is no prohibition under the Hatch Act of allowing political appointees to talk to other political appointees about the political landscape in which they are trying to advance the president's agenda."
Oh, well if White House counsels office said it was legal than it must be on the up-and-up, right? Theyve certainly never used a dubious legal interpretation to justify anything untoward before, have they? Of course not.
Unfortunately for the Bushies, some Democrats have some problems with the administrations interpretation of relevant events.
They have alleged that at the end of the January presentation at GSA, Administrator Lurita Doan asked all present to consider how they could use the agency to "help our candidates" in 2008. They also question whether the PowerPoint demonstration Jennings used violated the Hatch Act.
Asking federal employees to use the Government Services Administration to help Republican candidates win is a far, far cry from having informational briefings. If the Democrats accusations are true (and knowing this administration they probably are,) then there should be a whole heaping helping of people losing their jobs.
That is, of course, if the Special Counsel chosen to investigate these issues within the White House doesnt lose his job first.
The Office of Special Counsel, led by Scott Bloch, is in charge of enforcing the Hatch Act. At the same time, Bloch himself is being investigated by the Bush administration on separate matters, including his enforcement of the Hatch Act.
[
]
At the same time that Bloch is investigating the White House, the Bush administration is investigating Bloch for his handling of Hatch Act cases as well as a complaint filed against Bloch by a group of career Office of Special Counsel employees and four public interest groups.
The complaint alleges that Bloch created a hostile work environment with retaliatory acts against his employees. It states that 12 career employees were involuntarily reassigned because they were believed to have been involved in whistle-blowing. The complaint, being handled by the Office of Personnel Management's inspector general, also alleges that Bloch did not enforce bans against discrimination based on sexual orientation in the federal work place.
"The OPM investigation is a completely separate matter," said Loren Smith, a spokesman for Bloch, who has denied the allegations in the complaint.
Debra Katz, an attorney representing the employees, alleged that Bloch launched the investigation into political activity at the White House because he feared repercussions from the investigation of his own activities.
In other words, were never going to get to the bottom of this. And the White House skates away as law-breakers yet again.




Comments
SignalNoise
USA
February 2004
APR 26, 2007 07:07 PM
HoneyBadger
USA
July 2006
APR 26, 2007 11:11 PM
MschfMayhemSoap
Phoenix, AZ
April 2006
APR 26, 2007 11:43 PM
holdme
I'm lost
February 2007
APR 27, 2007 01:14 AM
NickFaust
USA
April 2004
APR 27, 2007 05:17 AM
wildswan
I'm lost
June 2006
APR 27, 2007 06:01 AM
punk
Phoenix, AZ
January 2004
APR 27, 2007 06:07 AM
jaggy
Austin, TX
October 2003
APR 27, 2007 06:08 AM
Chainlink
Key West, FL
August 2005
APR 27, 2007 07:04 AM
coffeeboy
Boston, MA
March 2007
APR 27, 2007 09:09 AM
geo35
Minneapolis, MN
January 2003
APR 27, 2007 09:57 AM