Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(169,919 posts)
27. Appointees? Yes except for certain circumstances (which he is apparently forbidding)
Tue Aug 30, 2022, 06:46 PM
Aug 2022
https://osc.gov/Services/Pages/HatchAct-FAQ.aspx#tabGroup27

Presidential Appointees with Senate Confirmation

I am an employee who was appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (PAS). Am I covered by the Hatch Act?

Yes. An employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (PAS), is subject to the provisions of the Hatch Act. However, certain PAS's are not subject to the Act's prohibition against engaging in political activity while on duty, in a federal room or building, wearing an official uniform or insignia, or using a government vehicle. To be exempt from this prohibition, a PAS must meet all of the following criteria:

1) the duties and responsibilities of his position must continue outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post;

2) his position must be located within the United States; and

3) he must determine policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of federal laws. ​


If a PAS meets all these criteria, he is not prohibited from engaging in political activity while on duty, in a federal room or building, wearing an official uniform or insignia, or using a government vehicle, provided the costs associated with the political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States. However, the PAS remains subject to all the other prohibitions of the Hatch Act, and thus, may not: use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election; knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution from any person; be a candidate for public office in a partisan election; or knowingly solicit or discourage the political activity of any person who has business before the employee's employing office.​​​


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Maybe I'm wrong, but this seems like a signal. FalloutShelter Aug 2022 #1
Interesting... EndlessWire Aug 2022 #3
+1 2naSalit Aug 2022 #5
He doesn't offer up a great number of lines to read between. Harker Aug 2022 #9
And it's a good message; the right message. NM Grins Aug 2022 #20
He's a judicious man, certainly. n/t Harker Aug 2022 #24
I agree. Assume defensive posture. mjvpi Aug 2022 #21
The biggest indication of action towards Benedict Donald MarineCombatEngineer Aug 2022 #31
I hope it doesn't come to that but it would definitely be "a sign" as the saying goes. ❤️ littlemissmartypants Aug 2022 #32
Bravo. LakeArenal Aug 2022 #2
Most intriguing! calimary Aug 2022 #4
As it should be. LiberalFighter Aug 2022 #6
+++ agree. n/t iluvtennis Aug 2022 #16
Interesting. sheshe2 Aug 2022 #7
Something big must be coming down liberal N proud Aug 2022 #8
Hmmm... Snackshack Aug 2022 #10
A number of SCOTUS judges though think that they do not need to abide by ethical standards. cstanleytech Aug 2022 #11
The R SCOTUS Judges believe they are above the LAW. KS Toronado Aug 2022 #17
The only law they follow is their religious laws. Farmer-Rick Aug 2022 #22
Love this: Super Sky Daddy Better Days Ahoy Aug 2022 #34
A perception disorder that afflicts wnylib Aug 2022 #35
I also Rebl2 Aug 2022 #12
Huh? James48 Aug 2022 #13
Probably several dozen zipplewrath Aug 2022 #25
34 was the number I found Zeitghost Aug 2022 #33
Doesn't the Hatch Act already require this? FakeNoose Aug 2022 #14
Appointees? Yes except for certain circumstances (which he is apparently forbidding) BumRushDaShow Aug 2022 #27
I like it! nt Wounded Bear Aug 2022 #15
It's a point of integrity and honor in cleaning up the mess that TFG left vlyons Aug 2022 #18
What does this actually mean? quakerboy Aug 2022 #19
In the case of indictments, there may be many named people who show their homework? mjvpi Aug 2022 #23
Especially in the DOJ zipplewrath Aug 2022 #26
Yes, what you are missing in this is that wnylib Aug 2022 #36
Must be. But my thought was appearance vs reality quakerboy Aug 2022 #37
There is something else that I think you are missing wnylib Aug 2022 #38
Well, thats proper mysterious. quakerboy Aug 2022 #39
I'm thinking the founders, from their perspective of blissful naivety, jaxexpat Aug 2022 #28
Caesar's wife must be above suspicion Jack the Greater Aug 2022 #29
Good move Garland SouthernDem4ever Aug 2022 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Garland Bans Political Ap...»Reply #27