Sorry for the confusion (which others have adequately explained). I did take it as you expressing non-fandom for the author of the legislation rather than the act itself.
Careful with the R word. I could involve Trump declaring marshal law and assuming the title President for Life. Mitch McConnell would see nothing wrong with that, I’m sure.
I’m not speaking from my “authority” as a lawyer. Shit, I didn’t know I had such a thing.
I’m speaking from common sense construction of a statute. It simply makes no sense, regardless of its constitutionality, that a president can say something, but his or her spokesperson cannot say it. That construction, given the purpose of the statute, is absurd.
And I mean that whether President Trump, Obama, or Biden does it.
The Supreme Court has upheld the statute in the cases cited above on very different facts and for very different reasons than saying that a president’s spokesperson is violating the law for parroting an obvious message from the President.
The President is her boss, not her employer. And we don’t pay people to campaign for the incumbent.
I’m not sure if that’s better or worse.
Shit. If I am allowed to say it, why is it a horrible thing to turn to the person standing next to me, whisper it in her ear, and then have her say it? That should be a felony?
Put aside your Trump hatred for a second and look at it for what it is.
You don’t think any White House Spokesperson for the last ever has not campaigned for the incumbent? Should that person say bad things about the current president?
If my friend is allowed to say “Burn this broken system to the ground” at this protest, why am I not allowed to say that when standing five feet away (while acting in my official capacity as a police officer)?
:rolleyes:
Hey, buddy, newsflash: when you work for the government, your speech gets regulated. Because you work for the government.
Kellyanne Conway’s job is not “Donald Trump’s Publicist” or “Roy Moore’s Publicist”. She has an actual government job! It’s “Counselor to the president”. And, believe it or not, this is supposed to be a non-partisan position! I know, right, what a fucking concept - an office of government that doesn’t exist solely for partisan gain. This means that she’s not allowed to “use [her] official title or position while participating in political activity”. Say, for example, participating in political activity while going on an interview where she knows she will be presented as “Counselor to the President”.
Indeed, here’s section two of the Hatch Act:
SEC. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department, independent agency, or other agency of the United States (including any corporation controlled by the United States or any agency thereof, and any corporation all of the capital stock of which is owned by the United States or any agency thereof ), to use his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting the election or the nomination of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential electors Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories and insular possessions.
The first bolded section describes Conway - her job falls under that grouping.
The second bolded section describes Conway’s actions when she went on Fox News as “The White House Counselor”.
Neither of these things can reasonably be disputed. So what we’re left with is “this law sucks”. And buddy, speaking as someone who grew up with hippies, I’m with you. But maybe we should apply that standard to all the people in prison on marijuana-related offenses before we apply it to someone who gets paid millions of dollars to go on TV and lie through her teeth, and for whom the only consequence would be “no longer having a high-ranking executive position”.
(Side note: holy shit, d’y’ever sit back and look at what, exactly, you’re defending? Seriously, from an outside perspective, you are saying, “this incredibly wealthy person should not lose her government job of going on TV and lying to people despite breaking a law that is very easy not to break”. You may think you have good reasons for saying that - “you may think” is very pointedly not the same thing as “you do” - but christ, what a fucking thing to be arguing for.)
The Hatch Act sounds pretty reasonable to me - people working in positions in government expected to be non-partisan have to be non-partisan while on the job. Otherwise, let’s just drop the pretense and say that there are no non-partisan positions within government - without the law, the concept is meaningless.
But if Kellyanne Conway wants to play fluffer for the RNC, she can find a job that doesn’t have a legal prerequisite of nonpartisanship, or, radical notion, keep her job to herself when she’s going on Fox News. I mean, fucking christ, KAC is on TV nearly every night, and the report only cites two interviews. It doesn’t seem like a heavy lift to not break the fucking law!
Heck, she can even speak out on politics, if she wants. She just can’t do so in her official capacity.
The very reason for her job is to speak out on politics.
The reason for this law was to prevent the postmaster in Elk Lick, Indiana from telling his 4 letter carriers that if they enjoy the nice work environment they have they had each better put up 100 signs this weekend supporting the Dem/Rep candidate for mayor. Or for setting up a phone bank in the post office for the mayor, or passing out the mayor’s campaign literature in each mailbox. The postmaster’s job is only to make sure that he gets the mail delivered and to use his office for political campaigning is unfair to the other side. When you have one political party in the White House that is simply a natural advantage to incumbency for down ballot races.
None of this anti-corruption law should apply to such a high-level individual who works directly with the President from doing something so mundane as endorsing a candidate that the President has already endorsed. You have a situation where everyone in the world knows who Kellyanne Conway supports, but she just can’t say it. That’s not corruption; that is just a silly application of the law: an application which has never been tested because it would almost certainly lose if prosecuted.
then maybe they should have changed the law at some point to make it not apply to high level people?
Cite that her job description includes “speak publicly in official capacity about ongoing partisan disputes”?
As pointed out previously: this is not true. Kellyanne Conway is more than welcome to go on TV and say, “I support Roy Moore, and I think anyone voting for the democratic candidate is a huge piece of shit”.
She just can’t do it in her official capacity.
Because her job is supposed to be non-partisan.
Because that’s the point of the Hatch Act.
Again, KAC is on the news on a near-daily basis, usually to repeat partisan talking points. The recommendation to have her fire listed two examples. That’s a weird disparity, right? Not really, if you understand what “official capacity” means!
Do you understand what “official capacity” means?
The last part is the problem – you’re not supposed to say “HAIL HYDRA!” to everybody.
Your reason for her not breaking the law is that the President instructed her to break the law?
It’s good to be the king.
He does look like the Piss Boy.
It is not at all clear that the Hatch Act is meant to apply to this type of conduct. Again, it would be a silly application of it and it would serve no purpose at all, not the least the purpose of the Hatch Act.
A particularly bad argument, since the Trump-appointed arbiter of ethics for the Federal Government says that it does.
So she can say anything she wants, but she must preface it by saying, “And for the next statement, I am only speaking as Kellyanne Conway, private citizen, not as Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the President. See when I wave my left hand in a circle like this, private citizen, when I don’t, official capacity.”
That in your mind makes sense as an application of a serious law? And from posters in this thread, a Very Serious violation if the left hand is waived the wrong way?
That is a terrible example because people appointed to ethics positions, boards or commissions are always on the lookout for ticky tack violations, even possible violations, because it justifies their jobs. When that person is appointed to the Supreme Court, let me know.