Full Version: The Hatch Act
GOP Fact Sheet, April 2, 2004:
Treasury Department press release, April 9, 2004:
The Hatch Act. The first item highlighted by the Office of the Special Counsel is this: Federal and D.C. employees may not use official authority or influence to interfere with an election.
Is the Treasury Department's proselytising for the Bush administration a violation of the Hatch Act? If so, who should be held accountable?
QUOTE
America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's polices are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation.
Treasury Department press release, April 9, 2004:
QUOTE
America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation.
The Hatch Act. The first item highlighted by the Office of the Special Counsel is this: Federal and D.C. employees may not use official authority or influence to interfere with an election.
Is the Treasury Department's proselytising for the Bush administration a violation of the Hatch Act? If so, who should be held accountable?
QUOTE
Is the Treasury Department's proselytising for the Bush administration a violation of the Hatch Act? If so, who should be held accountable?
Yes, definitely. Bush has no problems violating this, this was not the first time.
Remember the medicare ads? http://www.bushout.tv/archives/496.html
No only is there a possibility that it's against election laws, but it does so much spinning it could also be called "false advertising".
The Bushies moral compass is so broken they don't even flinch about stuff like this.
It's the same lack of morals that allows them to name more pollution " Clear Skies Initiative " unhealthy forest practices " Healthy Forest Initiative" and to turn the Environmental Protection Agency into the Environmental Profiting and Polluting Agency without changing its name.
Ironically today (better late than never I guess) I came across FailureIsImpossible.com. If you click the "We've been targeted in opinion wars" link you get this:
Authenticity is sooo overrated.
Is the Treasury Department's proselytizing for the Bush administration a violation of the Hatch Act? If so, who should be held accountable?
It isn't a leap in logic to suggest administration-appointed employees lack originality and objectivity to perform their job to the American public when information doesn't carry GOP sentiments. Two examples are pressuring the CDC to drop information about the effectiveness of condoms or withholding information about the Medicare bill. Question is, are these actions encouraged from the top or are they the spontaneous occurences of a splinter cabal? Sadly, if it is either condoned or encouraged from the White House don't expect Bush to be held accountable.
QUOTE
We are embarrassed and a bit peeved to admit it, but we have been spammed, scammed, hoodwinked – Bush-whacked, if you will – by a Republican Party letter-writing scheme designed to imply widespread grassroots support for President Bush and his policies.
In the past couple of weeks, the same letter – from a Kingston resident – supporting the president's economic policies has appeared on our letters page. It is brief, to the point, contains factual information and is well-written. A perfect letter to the editor.
Too perfect. The letter was written by a GOP staffer and posted on a Republican National Committee Web site that requires the letter "writer" to merely sign his or her name and click to e-mail it to a local paper or papers. Those who do so earn points toward gifts (mouse pads, T-shirts, folding chairs …). Getting it published earns more points. The lack of individual thought or effort in this strategy has earned it the name "astroturf." It looks like the real thing, but it has no roots.
The same letter, in exactly the same words, has appeared dozens of times in the past few weeks in newspapers around the country. Big papers and little papers. You've probably read it. It begins: "When it comes to the economy, President Bush is demonstrating genuine leadership." It stays right on the points the national GOP wants to get out to the public and the overall effect is to suggest there are lots of people out there who understand and endorse the president's economic policies.
Maybe there are, but these are people who could not write a letter on their own. Instead, they have chosen to pretend that the thoughts and words expressed are theirs. This is not what our opinion pages are about. Our readers presume that the letters and "My Views" published are the results of the letter-writer doing more than clicking a couple of boxes on a Web site. That they are original thoughts and research and not part of a nationwide letter-writing campaign. Indeed, such phony letters are an insult to readers and genuine writers to this paper, which is more important than any embarrassment on our part.
-- Record Online article dated 02/2003
In the past couple of weeks, the same letter – from a Kingston resident – supporting the president's economic policies has appeared on our letters page. It is brief, to the point, contains factual information and is well-written. A perfect letter to the editor.
Too perfect. The letter was written by a GOP staffer and posted on a Republican National Committee Web site that requires the letter "writer" to merely sign his or her name and click to e-mail it to a local paper or papers. Those who do so earn points toward gifts (mouse pads, T-shirts, folding chairs …). Getting it published earns more points. The lack of individual thought or effort in this strategy has earned it the name "astroturf." It looks like the real thing, but it has no roots.
The same letter, in exactly the same words, has appeared dozens of times in the past few weeks in newspapers around the country. Big papers and little papers. You've probably read it. It begins: "When it comes to the economy, President Bush is demonstrating genuine leadership." It stays right on the points the national GOP wants to get out to the public and the overall effect is to suggest there are lots of people out there who understand and endorse the president's economic policies.
Maybe there are, but these are people who could not write a letter on their own. Instead, they have chosen to pretend that the thoughts and words expressed are theirs. This is not what our opinion pages are about. Our readers presume that the letters and "My Views" published are the results of the letter-writer doing more than clicking a couple of boxes on a Web site. That they are original thoughts and research and not part of a nationwide letter-writing campaign. Indeed, such phony letters are an insult to readers and genuine writers to this paper, which is more important than any embarrassment on our part.
-- Record Online article dated 02/2003
Authenticity is sooo overrated.
Is the Treasury Department's proselytizing for the Bush administration a violation of the Hatch Act? If so, who should be held accountable?
It isn't a leap in logic to suggest administration-appointed employees lack originality and objectivity to perform their job to the American public when information doesn't carry GOP sentiments. Two examples are pressuring the CDC to drop information about the effectiveness of condoms or withholding information about the Medicare bill. Question is, are these actions encouraged from the top or are they the spontaneous occurences of a splinter cabal? Sadly, if it is either condoned or encouraged from the White House don't expect Bush to be held accountable.
I don't see the ad on the Treasury Department website that advocates Bushs' re-election...
Obviously, those in the Treasury Department are appointed by Bush (at least the head honchos are). They have similar economic views.
Now, the apparent conflict of interest here is that the GOP website is using the same line of reasoning that the Treasury Department. This begs the question: does art imitate life or does life imitate art? (Alternatively: which came first, the chicken or the egg.) The fact that they espouse similar views is not surprising.
I fail to see where the Treasury Department (or the commercials for Medicare, for that matter) "interfere with elections". The Treasury Department's press release contains one reference to Bush: that Bush proposed free online tax returns. No mention of tax cuts as related to Bush, no mention of "Kerry will repeal the tax cuts". Nothing.
I fail to see where the law was violated.
Obviously, those in the Treasury Department are appointed by Bush (at least the head honchos are). They have similar economic views.
Now, the apparent conflict of interest here is that the GOP website is using the same line of reasoning that the Treasury Department. This begs the question: does art imitate life or does life imitate art? (Alternatively: which came first, the chicken or the egg.) The fact that they espouse similar views is not surprising.
I fail to see where the Treasury Department (or the commercials for Medicare, for that matter) "interfere with elections". The Treasury Department's press release contains one reference to Bush: that Bush proposed free online tax returns. No mention of tax cuts as related to Bush, no mention of "Kerry will repeal the tax cuts". Nothing.
I fail to see where the law was violated.
QUOTE
Now, the apparent conflict of interest here is that the GOP website is using the same line of reasoning that the Treasury Department.
-- Amlord
-- Amlord
Hardly. The Treasury Department is using the GOP's line of reasoning. Look at the dates.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 30 2004, 12:50 PM)
The Treasury Department's press release contains one reference to Bush: that Bush proposed free online tax returns. No mention of tax cuts as related to Bush, no mention of "Kerry will repeal the tax cuts". Nothing.
I fail to see where the law was violated.
I fail to see where the law was violated.
Come on Amlord I know you can read between the lines as well as the rest of us.
QUOTE
America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's polices are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation.
Reading between the lines (and this isn't much of a stretch) you get this:
America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's polices are doing (hmm sounds like a pat on the back for Bush); or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation (like my opponent John Kerry wishes to do).
Of course they take Kerry's message out of context there but why should the Treasury Department worry about being factually accurate.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 30 2004, 03:50 PM)
Now, the apparent conflict of interest here is that the GOP website is using the same line of reasoning that the Treasury Department. This begs the question: does art imitate life or does life imitate art? (Alternatively: which came first, the chicken or the egg.) The fact that they espouse similar views is not surprising.
We're not talking about a "line of reasoning" or "espousing similar views" - we are looking at a verbatim quote from a Republican Party position paper in an official press release issued by a department of the federal government. The seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth words of both are "the President's policies". You might have a case - at a real stretch - if they had even bothered to paraphrase the GOP paper. Apparently they're too arrogant to give a damn about being seen to transparently endorse a party political position.
In terms of your chicken/egg question, the GOP publication - as I noted - is dated April 2, 2004 and the Treasury Department publication - as I noted - is dated April 9, 2004. Now, let's see... how can we figure out which came first?
QUOTE
I fail to see where the Treasury Department (or the commercials for Medicare, for that matter) "interfere with elections". The Treasury Department's press release contains one reference to Bush: that Bush proposed free online tax returns. No mention of tax cuts as related to Bush, no mention of "Kerry will repeal the tax cuts". Nothing.
The Treasury Department is advocating a platform position of the GOP - quoting it verbatim. If "America... can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's polices are doing" is not "related to Bush", then I don't know what is. Are you suggesting, perhaps, that the US Treasury Department is referring to the President of Freedonia or the President of Amalgamated Widget or the President of the senior class of John W. Snow's high school???
The Fact Sheet that the Treasury Department is quoting in their press release specifically cites "the tax relief proposed and signed into law by President Bush". Something tells me that this is the "President" to which the press release refers - and it is patently obvious that the Treasury Department is promoting the policy decisions of George W Bush. Publicly endorsing the "policies" of one candidate ("the President") is clearly an attempt to "interfere with elections". It's called advocacy. It is also, by definition, a violation of the Hatch Act.
QUOTE
I fail to see where the law was violated.
Why am I not surprised?
QUOTE(Wertz @ Apr 30 2004, 04:14 PM)
The Fact Sheet that the Treasury Department is quoting in their press release specifically cites "the tax relief proposed and signed into law by President Bush". Something tells me that this is the "President" to which the press release refers - and it is patently obvious that the Treasury Department is promoting the policy decisions of George W Bush.
The "fact sheet" was not referenced in the Treasury Document. There is no link, no mention of Bush, no endorsement of a candidate. Joe citizen has no reason to connect these two documents. Joe citizen see no endorsement of any particular candidate in the Treasury Department document.
QUOTE(Wertz)
Publicly endorsing the "policies" of one candidate ("the President") is clearly an attempt to "interfere with elections". It's called advocacy. It is also, by definition, a violation of the Hatch Act.
If publicly endorsing the policies of one candidate (the incumbent) were illegal, every single politician in Washington would be guilty. Appointed officials are appointed precisely because they support the political views of one candidate (the incumbent).
Besides, the Hatch act, as you cited earlier, applies only to a small group of government officials (in the broad restrictive sense):
Hatch Act for Federal Employees
QUOTE
Agencies/Employees Prohibited From Engaging in Partisan Political Activity
Employees of the following agencies (or agency components), or in the following categories, are subject to more extensive restrictions on their political activities than employees in other Departments and agencies:
Administrative Law Judges (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372)
Central Imagery Office
Central Intelligence Agency
Contract Appeals Boards (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372a)
Criminal Division (Department of Justice)
Defense Intelligence Agency
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Elections Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
National Security Agency
National Security Council
Office of Criminal Investigation (Internal Revenue Service)
Office of Investigative Programs (Customs Service)
Office of Law Enforcement (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms)
Office of Special Counsel
Secret Service
Senior Executive Service (career positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(4))
Employees of the following agencies (or agency components), or in the following categories, are subject to more extensive restrictions on their political activities than employees in other Departments and agencies:
Administrative Law Judges (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372)
Central Imagery Office
Central Intelligence Agency
Contract Appeals Boards (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372a)
Criminal Division (Department of Justice)
Defense Intelligence Agency
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Elections Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
National Security Agency
National Security Council
Office of Criminal Investigation (Internal Revenue Service)
Office of Investigative Programs (Customs Service)
Office of Law Enforcement (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms)
Office of Special Counsel
Secret Service
Senior Executive Service (career positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(4))
I don't see Treasury there....
QUOTE(Wertz)
QUOTE(Amlord)
I fail to see where the law was violated.
Why am I not surprised?
I'm just a doofus Republican...
Not real thrilled with this quite frankly. I don't think it was an appropriate thing to include in a Treasury Department news release. Although Amlord is right I think that this isn't a violation technically of the Hatch Act, I do think it violates the spirit and intent of that law. We are getting to the fine line between "Bush the President" and "Bush for President" and I would say this crosses that line. Therefore I find myself in the uncomfortable 
position of.....
(just had to use the new Icon Mike created! 
)Agreeing with Wertz.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 30 2004, 05:02 PM)
Besides, the Hatch act, as you cited earlier, applies only to a small group of government officials (in the broad restrictive sense).
Wrong. Read it again.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 30 2004, 05:02 PM)
QUOTE
Employees of the following agencies (or agency components), or in the following categories, are subject to more extensive restrictions on their political activities than employees in other Departments and agencies:
Administrative Law Judges (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372)
Central Imagery Office
Central Intelligence Agency
Contract Appeals Boards (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372a)
Criminal Division (Department of Justice)
Defense Intelligence Agency
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Elections Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
National Security Agency
National Security Council
Office of Criminal Investigation (Internal Revenue Service)
Office of Investigative Programs (Customs Service)
Office of Law Enforcement (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms)
Office of Special Counsel
Secret Service
Senior Executive Service (career positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(4))
Administrative Law Judges (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372)
Central Imagery Office
Central Intelligence Agency
Contract Appeals Boards (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372a)
Criminal Division (Department of Justice)
Defense Intelligence Agency
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Elections Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
National Security Agency
National Security Council
Office of Criminal Investigation (Internal Revenue Service)
Office of Investigative Programs (Customs Service)
Office of Law Enforcement (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms)
Office of Special Counsel
Secret Service
Senior Executive Service (career positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(4))
I don't see Treasury there....
The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of all executive branch employees of the federal government - including "the use official authority or influence to interfere with an election". Treasury is, indeed, part of the executive branch. The list which you quoted is a list of agencies to which even more restrictions apply (such as wearing political buttons to work). Oh, wait - it says that in the bit you quoted.
Sorry about the uncomfortable position, Aquilla.
We need some clarification, I guess.
The statute precludes "interfering with an election" using this terminology:
Let's just say the definition is more than a little fuzzy.
No government department or ethics review board that I could find provided a more exact definition of "interfering with an election".
I obviously see where you are coming from here. The language comes right out of the GOP campaign. HOWEVER, is that enough to make it criminal activity? It is not espousing (overtly) George W. Bush's re-election. Is it illegal for any government agency to report on its activities over the past 3 years if that information would be positive for Bush?
Are the commercials explaining the new Medicare benefits illegal?
Are Labor Department statistics illegal if they are favorable to Bush?
Are the following quotes from Press Releases in the Treasury Department Illegal?:
DEPUTY TREASURY SECRETARY STUART E. EIZENSTAT
There are many examples of Treasury Dept. officials "talking up" the economy and the Clinton-GORE role in creating that economy.
This isn't anything new, I'm afraid.
The statute precludes "interfering with an election" using this terminology:
QUOTE
(d) The prohibition against use of official
authority to interfere with a Federal
election by a person employed in
any administrative position by the
United States in connection with any
activity financed in whole or in part by
Federal funds (18 U.S.C. 595).
authority to interfere with a Federal
election by a person employed in
any administrative position by the
United States in connection with any
activity financed in whole or in part by
Federal funds (18 U.S.C. 595).
Let's just say the definition is more than a little fuzzy.
No government department or ethics review board that I could find provided a more exact definition of "interfering with an election".
I obviously see where you are coming from here. The language comes right out of the GOP campaign. HOWEVER, is that enough to make it criminal activity? It is not espousing (overtly) George W. Bush's re-election. Is it illegal for any government agency to report on its activities over the past 3 years if that information would be positive for Bush?
Are the commercials explaining the new Medicare benefits illegal?
Are Labor Department statistics illegal if they are favorable to Bush?
Are the following quotes from Press Releases in the Treasury Department Illegal?:
QUOTE
We live in an exciting time. New information technologies have ushered in an economic transformation as profound as that of the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century. This Information Revolution has been a driving force behind our nation's unprecedented prosperity. We are in the midst of the longest economic expansion in our nation's history. By the end of this fiscal year, we will have achieved three straight years of unified budget surpluses, totaling just over $400 billion.
When this Administration took office in January 1993, there were fewer that 1,000 web sites on the Internet. Many people had not heard of the World Wide Web, let alone come to terms with e-mail, URLs or online shopping. Now, of course, these terms are part of our everyday language and the Internet is an integral part of daily life for many Americans. The most basic ways in which we interact and transact, educate and communicate are being transformed by the Information Revolution in ways we are only beginning to see today.
The Clinton-Gore Administration has worked hard to create an environment in which this Information Revolution can flourish, adding efficiencies and dynamism to our economy.
We have helped to instill confidence in the Internet by ensuring that appropriate measures are taken to protect consumers, guard individuals' privacy and safeguard critical infrastructure components.
We have fostered the legal and regulatory climate necessary to promote the growth of electronic commerce. On issues such as digital signatures, electronic payments and Internet taxation, the Administration is ensuring that our laws and institutions keep pace with the rapid changes in e-commerce technology.
And as part of our efforts to promote the growth of the digital economy, the Administration has recognized the need to invest in educating and training our workers to bridge the "digital divide."
When this Administration took office in January 1993, there were fewer that 1,000 web sites on the Internet. Many people had not heard of the World Wide Web, let alone come to terms with e-mail, URLs or online shopping. Now, of course, these terms are part of our everyday language and the Internet is an integral part of daily life for many Americans. The most basic ways in which we interact and transact, educate and communicate are being transformed by the Information Revolution in ways we are only beginning to see today.
The Clinton-Gore Administration has worked hard to create an environment in which this Information Revolution can flourish, adding efficiencies and dynamism to our economy.
We have helped to instill confidence in the Internet by ensuring that appropriate measures are taken to protect consumers, guard individuals' privacy and safeguard critical infrastructure components.
We have fostered the legal and regulatory climate necessary to promote the growth of electronic commerce. On issues such as digital signatures, electronic payments and Internet taxation, the Administration is ensuring that our laws and institutions keep pace with the rapid changes in e-commerce technology.
And as part of our efforts to promote the growth of the digital economy, the Administration has recognized the need to invest in educating and training our workers to bridge the "digital divide."
DEPUTY TREASURY SECRETARY STUART E. EIZENSTAT
There are many examples of Treasury Dept. officials "talking up" the economy and the Clinton-GORE role in creating that economy.
This isn't anything new, I'm afraid.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.