Several months ago, and more recently over the past few days, since Trump has announced that he plans to appoint his son-in-law as a special advisor to the administration, the federal government anti-nepotism law has been brought up as a roadblock…and then news agencies have been claiming that it was enacted in response to JFK’s appointment of RFK as attorney general. FALSE.
I personally believe that Trump’s appointment of Jared Kushner as an on-staff advisor to the administration is stupid and a mistake. He’s not qualified. If Trump wants his son-in-law’s advice, he just call him and get it, there’s no need for him to be on staff…much like HRC wasn’t on Bill Clinton’s staff during his administration.
But the claim that the nepotism law was enacted in response to RFK’s appointment is just wrong.
From the Chicago Tribune article after the bill was passed, the author of the bill Rep. Neal Smith, D-Iowa, claims that it was about postmasters across the country hiring their relatives to lucrative civil service jobs. The article does mention that one of the consequences of the bill was that JFK would have been prevented from hiring RFK, but again the motive behind the bill was postmasters.
Mundane and somewhat pointless, but I wanted to share.
I thought the restriction was only on whom could be put in his cabinet. Is that not right? So both JFK and Don would easily skirt that restriction, I should think.
Ivanka and husband are now de facto Pres and First Lady, I suspect. They will live in DC, she will play First Lady and they’ll both sit in on all the meetings. And when Don’s in NYC, (most always) they’ll be actually running the show!
And Don will just provide distraction, and lots of it, stirring up shit storms on twitter and grabbing headlines. Fanning racist flames every chance he gets, I suspect.
And I’m not seeing that there is anything anyone can do to stop them, to be honest.
And he’s just laying the table, right now, this is all just the starter course. It’s gonna be a wild ride, that’s for sure!
Here’s the actual law, which reads, “A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.”
You make a good point, but I think it is generally difficult to ascribe one rationale for any particular law. While this congressman may have been thinking of postmasters when he wrote the bill, there are 534 other members of Congress who voted on it who may have had other reasons. I think it is reasonable to believe that quite a few of them may have been thinking of the RFK situation.
And in fact during Bill Clinton’s administration, he appointed Hillary to a task force on health care reform. It was challenged via a lawsuit, and the court ruled that the law didn’t apply to the Office of the President. The judge even wrote, “So, for example, a president would be barred from appointing his brother as attorney general, but perhaps not as a White House special assistant.” (See here.)
Actually having his son-in-law at his side might be a good thing!
From what I have read and as we all know, Trump is dysfunctional, no empathy, etc. HE DOES NOT KNOW how to deal with other people. He needs someone to keep him out of trouble - because he can’t do that on his own.
So I would see someone like his son-in-law as a “Nancy Reagan” type who will be the “real” President.
It was not a factor. They do mention the unpaid status later, but the actual reasoning they supply is that the President’s immediate office is not an agency within the meaning of the law:
…federal law also authorizes the president “to appoint and fix the pay of employees in the White House Office without regard to any other provision of law regulating the employment or compensation of persons in the Government service.”
“The most natural and straightforward reading of [the law is] the President may appoint relatives as employees in the White House Office ‘without regard to’ the anti-nepotism statute,” the OLC concluded. The OLC said the federal law is intended to give the president “broad discretion” in hiring White House employees.
Ya know, the whole “buh-buh-buh it’s legal so nobody can question whether it is wise!” tactic should have gone out with Hillary having a private email server. Especially when the folks who won the election wouldn’t shut up about it.