Did Bush break the law in his speech to the RNC?
Just wondering: was George Bush's address to the RNC from the White House illegal?
A fact page by the Office of Special Council says:
"The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of executive branch employees of the federal government...These federal and D.C. employees may not...engage in political activity while...in a government office."
Is Bush an executive branch employee?
A fact page by the Office of Special Council says:
"The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of executive branch employees of the federal government...These federal and D.C. employees may not...engage in political activity while...in a government office."
Is Bush an executive branch employee?
Advertisement
Good question. I just sent it to some friends who are experts in administrative law.
September 2, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hrm. I seem to remember President Josiah Bartlett having to go back to the residence in the White House to make some political phone calls for just that reason.
Granted, that was fictional, but they had some pretty knowledgeable people writing the episode (say, Dee Dee Myers?)
September 2, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but I am pretty sure Bartlet got made fun of for being so strict about that rule.
September 3, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And his response deserves repeating, verbatim:
"Because I choose not to. Because however empty a gesture it may seem, I would like to take some executive notice of the notion that it's probably not a good idea for the most powerful and influential person in the world to be calling up the people who's laws he signs, and asking them for money! I'm gonna do it, but not from behind this desk, not in this room."
September 3, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does it matter that technically he wasn't IN a government office?
If I remember correctly he appeared to be outside.
Or does just being on White House grounds suffice?
September 2, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think an enterprising news person is bound to ask that district attorney guy, Fred Thompson, after his speech this evening.
I'll be waiting.
September 2, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, my mistake, upon further review... he was indeed INSIDE. I guess now we get to parse what is and what is not considered an "office".
September 2, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe he'll resign, like Lurita.
September 3, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on, nobody would ever make an issue out of something like this. I mean, just ask Al Gore.
September 3, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Oh come on, nobody would ever make an issue out of something like this. I mean, just ask Al Gore."
Yeah, next thing you know someone will be complaining about Presidential Christmas card lists!!!
CFMA!!
September 3, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is CFMA?
September 3, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the law, which provides an exception for the President's Office. This was not a stupid question. Several White Houses have been investigated for alleged violations.
The Hatch Act applies to civil service (i.e. below political appointee) and Section 7324 of The Hatch Act provides an exemption to the ban on political activities to:
* (i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or
* (ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
September 3, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is actually an infraction.
Bush delivered his political speech from the State Floor of the White House (an area called "Cross Hall").
He used a White House Communications Agency Supplied podium.
He used a White House Communications Agency Presidential Seal.
This is use of both a government building as well as government resources on a non-reimbursable basis for political activity. This is expressly prohibited by the Hatch Act.
It will go unprosecuted because that's how things go in Bushworld. But its a very clear infraction.
As others have mentioned, Al Gore got grief for the fundraising calls he made from his office as Vice President. The act of making the call from inside the building was illegal - not the fact that he made a call.
September 3, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG! Podium-gate
September 3, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, this is not correct. Political appointees are employees and the Hatch Act was specifically put in to prevent them from politiking from their offices. Civil service appointees are not supposed to have any political considerations in their jobs at all, let alone campaigning. It's the appointees that you have to worry about--and Lurita, in case you forgot, was an appointee.
The President, on the other hand, is also paid a salary from the appropriations for the Office of the Executive--he is the Executive. There might be some question as to whether he would be considered an employee, but a CEO is certainly an employee of a corporation, so, by the same standard, the rules should apply here.
September 3, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
just in case it was not clear--I was replying to the original post (kateo), not the subsequent remarks.
September 3, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a question of who, it's a question of "where" and "with what?"
White House Appropriation funded-employees (aka White House advisor/staffers) do not face the same constraints as Schedule C appointees do.
The Appropriation employees can generally ignore most Hatch restrictions.
The one they cannot ignore is USE OF GOVERNMENT FACILITIES FOR ELECTIONEERING. Which is exactly what Bush did.
Exceptions have been carved out for use of Air Force One and Marine One (where campaigns pay the US Government a "reimbursable rate" for political travelers) because those are the only secure conveyances the President can use.
On the other hand, the President CAN GIVE A SPEECH ANYWHERE. There are no security concerns that say he can only, ever, speak from the White House. There is no White House building exception.
What he did while in the White House facilities was not legal under Hatch.
Unfortunately, there's no one out there to enforce it. But there's no Presidential exception.
Remember why the Bushies set up the sepereate RNC email system to communicate among White House aides? They said it was "in an abundance of caution" so they wouldn't use government resources for political activities. Same frickin' thing.
September 3, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Comparing the President of the United States to the CEO of a corporation is something that is usually done only by Republicans, who believe that the United States of America is a business, and who act on it by steering as much tax money as possible to their cronies.
September 3, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is actually an infraction.
Bush delivered his political speech from the State Floor of the White House (an area called "Cross Hall").
He used a White House Communications Agency Supplied podium.
He used a White House Communications Agency Presidential Seal.
This is use of both a government building as well as government resources on a non-reimbursable basis for political activity. This is expressly prohibited by the Hatch Act.
It will go unprosecuted because that's how things go in Bushworld. But its a very clear infraction.
As others have mentioned, Al Gore got grief for the fundraising calls he made from his office as Vice President. The act of making the call from inside the building was illegal - not the fact that he made a call.
September 3, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering all of the serious crimes he should be held accountable for... this is a very minor issue.
September 3, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey anything is worth a try. If we can't get him on war crimes or obstruction of justice, why not the Hatch Act? You never know!
September 3, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
So they told Elliot Ness.
September 3, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did Bush break the law? -Do fish swim?
September 3, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto new10. Period.
September 3, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>Considering all of the serious crimes he should be held accountable for... this is a very minor issue.
Yeah! And Al Capone didn't pay his taxes. So he went to jail! So it's been done before.
September 3, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>Considering all of the serious crimes he should be held accountable for... this is a very minor issue.
Yeah! And Al Capone didn't pay his taxes. So he went to jail! So it's been done before.
September 3, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I'm still a bit confused (not unusual for me when it comes to the law). Whether legal or not, it seemed inappropriate to me. But as others have said, since when does breaking the law or acting inappropriately stopped this Administration?
September 3, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
When has Bush not broken the law?
Since he wasn't impeached, we just have to settle for him leaving office with his reputation in tatters and his popularity at the bottom of the barrel. It's not ideal, but it'll do.
September 3, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get serious. The president is not subject to the Hatch Act, period. I can't believe that so many commenters treat this dumb post seriously.
Here, from the National Archives,
http://www.archives.gov/legal/ethics/hatch-act.html
is what a covered employee may not do:
September 3, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get serious. The president is not subject to the Hatch Act, period. I can't believe that so many commenters treat this dumb post seriously.
Here, from the National Archives,
http://www.archives.gov/legal/ethics/hatch-act.html
is what a covered employee may not do:
September 3, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get serious. The president is not subject to the Hatch Act, period. I can't believe that so many commenters treat this dumb post seriously.
Here, from the National Archives,
http://www.archives.gov/legal/ethics/hatch-act.html
is what a covered employee may not do:
September 3, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please fix this goddamn site.
September 3, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, OK, we hear ya.
September 3, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, what's the verdict here? I'm hearing that he broke the law and he didn't. Anyone have a definitive answer? Not that it matters, but let's just put it on the list of bad things the Bushies have done.
September 3, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink