Sorry officer, I didn’t realize I was going 65. Here’s a warning, be more careful next time
You’re avoiding making clear statements by resorting to snark. I believe you really mean, “I have no idea what the penalties under the law are, or what the discretion of legal enforcers of the law is, or even who enforces this law, or what its parameters are.” Is that correct? If not, what is your understanding of the law?
Again, given your disdain for weasel arguments, I trust you’ll answer forthrightly.
I consider it a huge win for the nation that a minor slipup by the press secretary, a year old “lie” by an official trying to protect health care workers, and a old laptop belonging to the Presidents adult fuckup son are the best that D_Anconia, Magiver, and Sam Stone can come up with.
The correct response, after the first couple responses, should’ve been:
“Wow, guess I didn’t realize how rampantly the previous administration violated the Hatch Act with no repercussions. I guess this one minor slip-up is pretty minor in comparison. Definitely doesn’t warrant criminal or civil penalties. Mea culpa.”
Mod note: Some of the comments above are entirely too personal. Not singling out anyone in particular, but stop it.
The OP has been answered.
There is no law against campaigning in churches and in fact politicians regularly campaign in churches.
I assume you are confused, because there is a law against tax exempt churches engaging in electioneering / political activity for specific candidates. However that law prohibits Church behavior (penalty for which isn’t criminal, it would be civil in the loss of tax exempt status), it does not at all criminalize individual behavior.
A political candidate appearing at a Church to campaign may be a violation of IRS rules for the church, but the candidate is perfectly in line with the law.
Additionally IRS guidelines actually say that Churches can host a political candidate and even let the candidate make a political speech—but they must make it an open invitation to multiple candidates and the Church cannot explicitly stated endorse any of the candidates.
Whether that was done for Kamala’s appearance I don’t know. But it would be an issue for the Church not Kamala. She has no legal entanglement.
Note that this area of IRS regulations are some of the least enforced parts of our tax laws. Churches very routinely outright break this law, and typically only at worst receive warning letters. We can probably guess why that is.
If I might offer a slight hijack-should there be criminal penalties for Hatch Act violations? Would that make possible violators more likely to avoid doing so?
In my opinion it wouldn’t. I don’t think that the problem lies with the penalties being too light, I think the problem is that it isn’t enforced.
If you threaten to ground your kid for a week for not doing their homework, and they don’t do their homework, and they continue to not do their homework, then threatening them with a month of being grounded won’t have an effect if you didn’t follow through on your first threat.
I actually think the Hatch act is overbroad in its wording and too subject to abuse, I’m fine with a law in the vein of not letting you use your government position to influence politics, but it needs to be very carefully constructed, which frankly the Hatch Act isn’t. While the Trump Administration openly flouted it, most administrations run afoul of it to some degree because elements of its specific wording are over-broad and probably bad policy.
As a former federal supervisor, I don’t think there is a problem when an employee illegally endorses a candidate on the job, is told to stop it, and does promptly stop — as happens. During the Obama administration, many employees had pictures of the first family, in their workspace, they had to take down during the re-election contest. Criminalizing a delay there would have been a waste of my tax dollars. Criminal prosecutions cost money that fine revenue rarely covers.
I hope Biden privately sent Psaki a note thanking her for apologizing and asking her not to go over that line again.
If the President shows contempt for law by standing by employees who violate the Hatch Act over and over, that would be a small something for voters to consider next election. But this should only be a small issue.
@D_Anconia I know we have figured out there are no criminal penalties for violating the Hatch Act, but would you be asking that same question after this came out yesterday: