Special counsel calls for Hatch Act reform (law bans federal workers from politicking)

[alp227]

Source: Wash. Post

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel is asking Congress to bring the Hatch Act into the 21st century.

The law, which prohibits political activity among most of the federal workforce while on duty, is desperately in need of an update to address issues ranging from technological advances to teleworking and simple fairness, the office said.

Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner on Thursday sent draft legislation to Congress to reform the 72-year-old law.

“The Hatch Act injects the federal government into state and local contests thousands of times a year, its penalties are inflexible and sometimes unfair, and it is out-of-date with the 21st century workplace,” Lerner said. “There’s bipartisan consensus that this law needs an update.”

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/special-counsel-calls-for-hatch-act-reform/2011/10/06/gIQAzH5URL_story.html

[red dog 1]

1. "Bipartisan Consensus"?

If, indeed, "there's bipartisan consensus that this law needs an update"; then I say
Go For It!

Not much "bipartisan consensus" on ANYTHING these days.

[Faux pas]

2. Think about it for a moment....if they have a bipartisan anything

no doubt it won't be good for the 99%. Call me paranoid.

[rampart]

3. the hatch act protects government employees

from being coerced into political activity by their bosses.

[quaker bill]

4. The Hatch act

also prevents government employees from running for office.

[No Elephants]

5. Isn't the POTUS and every member of Congress employed by government?

Can you point to specific language somewhere?

[quaker bill]

10. I am a government employee

and under the Hatch act, I am not allowed to engage in partisan activity while employed. I could, in theory, take an unpaid leave of absence, this could make feeding the family difficult. Elected officials are exempt. Their government staff cannot work on the campaign. Don't you recall Al Gore being investigated for the allegation of making fund raising calls from the Whitehouse? This is the Hatch act.

[No Elephants]

12. I do. I also recall Rove giving lectures to federal employees on how to help re-elect Bush.

Some scholars believe the Hatch Act should be strengthened.

I don't know enough to say I agree or disagree about the law needing strengthening, but I certainly have less than zero problem with people who work for the federal government not being able to use government property or government time to engage in partisan activities.

The President and Vice President are entitled to some slack, though, but only because they HAVE to live on government property, as well as work there.

I would not want them to have to leave, with a coterie of Secret Service agents, to make a calls from a public phone booth.

I do, however, object to Clinton's having a permanent war room for re-election in the WH, which I am sure every President after him will also have.

Reading this law, it may have come from the perception that FDR was turning a lot of the federal government into his campaign team. True or not, I don't think taxpayers should have to pay for that.

BTW, saying you are a federal employee is not the same as pointing to specific language somewhere.

BTW, you and another federal employee on this thread seem to have different understandings of this law. Please see Reply 13.

[24601]

11. I've been a fed many years and don't have a problem telling anyone

trying to coerce me to piss off. I don't need a nanny.

On the other hand, I am threatened with the loss of my job if wanted to take leave and work on any partisan campaign at any level of government. Yet there are feds who can do that.

Whatever the rule is, it should be the same for everybody.

If I want to run for part-time county council, I must resign from my career. But if a Senator wants to run for President, he or she has no such requirement.

Whatever they do, the rule should be the same for all feds, regardless of position or branch of government.

[No Elephants]

13. Sorry, I can see making a distinction between people who are federal employees because

they were elected to office and other federal employees.

Quaker Bill posted upthread that he or she is a federal employee and would have to take unpaid leave in order to run for office. You say you cannot take leave and run for office, so the two of you seem to have different understandings of the law.

[24601]

15. It's more than that - federal civil servants are not all under the

same restrictions. For example civil servants in EOP are exempt.

Quaker Bill is misunderstanding - some civil servants - not all - and no military, may take leave to work on a campaign. Not even those who are permitted to do so may actually run for office in a partisan race. We may ask for permission to run for positions that are non-partisan (most commonly the school board) - as long as no candidate in the race is representing a party or is endorsed by a party. The laws also extends to non-federal employees depending on the federal funding of their position.

Military personnel are under equivalent rules (the more limiting ones) based on a Defense Directive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

[No Elephants]

6. So far, repealing laws enacted during the FDR era has not been working well for anyone

who is not already a member of the kleptocracy/plutonomy.

And, as I have noted in other posts, watch out for the word "reform." Lately, bills that are supposed to "reform" something haven't been working well for anyone who is not already a member of the kleptocracy/plutonomy. either.

By the way, Bushco, especially Rove, violated the Hatch Act when Dummya was up for re-election, so when we decided to look only forward, we forgot about that, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

[OnyxCollie]

7. The Hatch Act was severely abused during the Bush administration.

By Lurita Doan at the General Services Administration and Scott Bloch, the corrupt investigator at the Office of Special Counsel.

Bloch got a month in jail for scrubbing computers. Had the contents of those computers been revealed, well, nothing would have happened. (We're talking Eric "Sleepy" Holder, remember?)

That there is a "bipartisan" call to reform the Hatch Act means "Democrats" will be using public funds to get Republicans elected.

[No Elephants]

14. "Reform." As I have posted before, duck whenever you hear that word anymore.

I don't think that word means what they think it means.

[bemildred]

16. "reform" == "deform" more times than not.

Consider the "No child left behind" act, which has been most destructive to our public school systems in the name of making them better; meanwhile shoveling boatloads of the public's tax money into the pockets of "privatization" grifters.

[bemildred]

8. The Hatch Act needs better enforcement. nt

[cstanleytech]

9. Agreed nt

[Chan790]

17. I'd support this,

If it's bipartisan, then the GOP is run by idiots. The law primarily affects politicking by civil servants...I live in DC and I can tell you the vast majority of civil servants I interact with are Democrats at all levels of the chain of command.

I don't see a downside to this.