The Hatch Act: Well intentioned but poor legislation?

[usmbguest5318]

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.)

 

[DarkFury]

So you are saying an advisor to the president has no free speech rights?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.)

How many more times will these despicable liberals sight the Hatch Act like a bunch of spoiled Snowflakes???

 

[JakeStarkey]

An adviser to the President is subject to the Hatch Act.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.)

Hatch is a senile fokking moron.

 

[Fiero425]

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.)

Hatch is a senile fokking moron.

I don't think it was named after the old FK from UTAH! I think I heard the law goes back to the 20's and even Sen. Hatch isn't that old!

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.)

Hatch is a senile fokking moron.

What? I presume you mean Orin Hatch? What has he to do with the Hatch Act?

 

[yiostheoy]

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.)

Hatch is a senile fokking moron.

What? I presume you mean Orin Hatch? What has he to do with the Hatch Act?

Don't even bring up the moron's name.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.)

Hatch is a senile fokking moron.

I don't think it was named after the old FK from UTAH! I think I heard the law goes back to the 20's and even Sen. Hatch isn't that old!

OT:
The act is not named for Orrin Hatch. I cannot count how often I've griped about people on this site saying things and not knowing what they are talking about and neither "up front" (nor after the fact in some instances) "owning" the fact that that their remarks were little but conjecture.

The Hatch Act that is topically relevant to this thread is the Hatch Act of 1939. Carl Hatch is the relevant former politician and he died in the 1960s. IIRC, there is/was also a Hatch Act in the 1800s; however, I think it had something to do agricultural research and colleges. Yes, I'm too damned lazy to look up what that one was about, but at least I'm not talking about it without informing readers that I'm speculatively relying on what I can remember, in the case of the 19th century Hatch Act, from some 40 odd years ago.

It's perfectly fine to not know what one is talking about. It's even okay to not feel like confirming the accuracy and relevance of one's remarks. It's not okay to not know what one is talking about, not feel like checking, and also not inform audience members that that is the case. Nobody is expected to "know everything," but folks are expected to exhibit the integrity of simply admitting when they're remarking on something about which they don't fully know what they're talking about. And it's not at all difficult or time consuming to indicate that; one need only say something such as:

• I think/believe "such and such" is so, but...
• Perhaps...
• To the best of my recollection...
• AFAIK..
• I've been told, but I haven't confirmed....
• Conjugate in the subjunctive mode the relevant verb(s) that one is already of a mind to use.
• I'm not sure....
• ..., but I don't know if that's so.
• It may be that....
• It's possible that....
• ..., but don't hold me to that.

The English language offers myriad ways for one to communicate that there is a measure of uncertainty in one's words/thoughts. One need only use them.

Ironically, I alluded to notion of one not remarking beyond the range of what one knows. I nearly removed that paragraph, but I chose not to because I've so often chided Trump and others for not constraining the nature and extent of their remarks to what they are certain to be so.

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.)

I also left that paragraph to subtly indicate/reinforce that the thread isn't about Kellyanne Conway, but rather the Hatch Act, which, if one is so moved, can be researched and discussed, in turn, with portfolio.

When pontificating and sharing your analysis, providing citations that point readers to your underlying research will help convince them that you have thought seriously about the matter under discussion.
-- Thomas G. Krattenmaker​

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.)

Hatch is a senile fokking moron.

What? I presume you mean Orin Hatch? What has he to do with the Hatch Act?

Don't even bring up the moron's name.

Why would I? The Hatch Act has nothing to do with him.

Were I discussing the game of bridge, I'd likely have to use the word "trump." That I do so doesn't make my remarks have a thing to do with Donald Trump. Folks go to and discuss Kennedy Center performances all the time and the character, words and deeds of no person named Kennedy is at all a part of the conversation.

Remember when you first heard it, like in 6th grade, you used to giggle. And the cock crowed three times, heh (laughter) the cock -- three times.
-- George Carlin

​

 

[Zorro!]

An adviser to the President is subject to the Hatch Act.

Now you tell us:

This isn't the first time a White House or cabinet official violated the Hatch Act. It happened several times in the Obama administration but the OSC didn't recommend the removal of the official.

In 2012, the OSC said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius made “extemporaneous partisan remarks” in her official capacity in violation of the Hatch Act. Sebelius acknowledged her remarks were a "mistake" and she was not removed from her position due to the violation.

Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, who is now a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, violated the Hatch Act in 2016 by praising then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in an interview at his HUD office, but President Obama did not remove him from his position.

 

[Fiero425]

Seek serious help if harking back to mitigate the criminal behavior of the Trump Admin.; you're really beggin'!

 

[Lesh]

The Hatch Act is good legislation that hasn't been enforced enough.
Trump's stooges have taken it to a place where it NEEDS to be enforced

 

[iceberg]

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.)

Ginsburg’s Trump Comments Draw Criticism

when they practice what they preach, i'll listen. til then, fuck 'em.