usmbguest5318
Gold Member
So one of my guests for Thanksgiving raised an interesting topic -- Kellyanne Conway's apparent violation of the Hatch Act -- that seems to be making news. Among the prohibitions of the Hatch Act is that government employees, elected government employees are excepted, may not endorse or speak against a partisan candidate for elected office, even when their . At issue is her remark earlier this week in which she appeared on Fox and Friends as "special counselor to the president" and remarked on the demerits of Doug Jones.
Our discussion of the matter was brief, however, because while in each president's term there is much that's been written about the Hatch Act and it's applicability, one of the people participating in the discussion noted that as far as she knew, only the POTUS can impose punishment on a presidential appointee. What she didn't know is whether that was so for all appointees or a subset of them. Neither did anyone else, so we moved on to another topic. (One participant is an attorney, but the Hatch Act is not within her scope of specific expertise.)
Now I don't much care what the USOSC determines about whether Conway violated the Hatch Act because I think it's highly unlikely she'd endure much of a penalty for doing so. Considering what are the penalties for Hatch Act violations, I think the law is only slightly more useful than tits on a bull. "Today" the potential offender and potential "getter away with nary a slap on the wrist" is Conway, but I suspect that the same has been the case with prominent and not so prominent federal employees in every Administration of the past 50 years.
An employee who violates the Hatch Act is subject to a range of disciplinary actions, including removal from federal service, reduction in grade, debarment from federal service for a period not to exceed 5 years, suspension, letter of reprimand, or a civil penalty not to exceed $1000. That reads as though it has "teeth," but the potential penalties, to say nothing of the actual ones imposed, seem to do very little to dissuade executive branch personnel from violating it. Moreover, I'm told Senatorially confirmed appointees can only be penalized by the POTUS. Lastly, the Hatch Act is far from clear and precise. It's got plenty of guidelines, but there's tons of "wiggle room" in them as well as in applying them.
So what do I think needs to happen? Well, insofar as the intention of the legislation is appropriate -- federal employees shouldn't use their visibility and influence to influence voters in partisan elections -- the Hatch Act needs to be "tightened up." That wouldn't be hard to do. All that need be said is that "federal employees who are not themselves elected office holders may not in any public setting say or do anything with regard to any ballot choice, other than casting their own ballot in elections and referenda in the district wherein they are registered to vote." As goes the penalty for violations, I think mandatory jail time (four years -- not more, not less) should be the only penalty because the people most likely to violate the Hatch Act's spirit are people whose carers don't depend on being employed in the government and they most certainly don't care about being fined $1000. (Hell, for quite a few of Trump's appointees, 500 $1000 fines is an insufficient monetary deterrent. In "W's" Administration [most likely, "Administration" in this case means appointees rather than all employees working in the executive branch], the net worth of the whole of it was $250M; that's 1/10th of Wilbur Ross' personal net worth.)
Our discussion of the matter was brief, however, because while in each president's term there is much that's been written about the Hatch Act and it's applicability, one of the people participating in the discussion noted that as far as she knew, only the POTUS can impose punishment on a presidential appointee. What she didn't know is whether that was so for all appointees or a subset of them. Neither did anyone else, so we moved on to another topic. (One participant is an attorney, but the Hatch Act is not within her scope of specific expertise.)
Now I don't much care what the USOSC determines about whether Conway violated the Hatch Act because I think it's highly unlikely she'd endure much of a penalty for doing so. Considering what are the penalties for Hatch Act violations, I think the law is only slightly more useful than tits on a bull. "Today" the potential offender and potential "getter away with nary a slap on the wrist" is Conway, but I suspect that the same has been the case with prominent and not so prominent federal employees in every Administration of the past 50 years.
An employee who violates the Hatch Act is subject to a range of disciplinary actions, including removal from federal service, reduction in grade, debarment from federal service for a period not to exceed 5 years, suspension, letter of reprimand, or a civil penalty not to exceed $1000. That reads as though it has "teeth," but the potential penalties, to say nothing of the actual ones imposed, seem to do very little to dissuade executive branch personnel from violating it. Moreover, I'm told Senatorially confirmed appointees can only be penalized by the POTUS. Lastly, the Hatch Act is far from clear and precise. It's got plenty of guidelines, but there's tons of "wiggle room" in them as well as in applying them.
So what do I think needs to happen? Well, insofar as the intention of the legislation is appropriate -- federal employees shouldn't use their visibility and influence to influence voters in partisan elections -- the Hatch Act needs to be "tightened up." That wouldn't be hard to do. All that need be said is that "federal employees who are not themselves elected office holders may not in any public setting say or do anything with regard to any ballot choice, other than casting their own ballot in elections and referenda in the district wherein they are registered to vote." As goes the penalty for violations, I think mandatory jail time (four years -- not more, not less) should be the only penalty because the people most likely to violate the Hatch Act's spirit are people whose carers don't depend on being employed in the government and they most certainly don't care about being fined $1000. (Hell, for quite a few of Trump's appointees, 500 $1000 fines is an insufficient monetary deterrent. In "W's" Administration [most likely, "Administration" in this case means appointees rather than all employees working in the executive branch], the net worth of the whole of it was $250M; that's 1/10th of Wilbur Ross' personal net worth.)