Continuing the discussion from The lineup for the Trump-backed America250 Concert is a little sus:
This is the biggest question for me (though more P&E than Cafe Society at this point). There’s plenty of deniability when it comes to music, but if he was serious about staging speeches (strikes me as unlikely, too much work) then I suspect he’d technically fall afoul of the Hatch Act.
Sadly, we’ve seen how little Trump cares for that over the years and how little effort has been applied to enforcing it.
So rather than taking over the Cafe Society thread, wanted to discuss this here. Personally, in a conditional future world where we have a less partisan government (I know, fat chance) we’d have a LOT better laws about the government policing itself, as well as actual mechanisms for enforcing violations.
Or a better form of actual representative government overall.
But speaking to actual, real-world solutions, what other current legislation do you think would apply to the use of Federal funds for partisan campaigning? Or if you were wanting to amend the Hatch Act (given say a slim majority of rational members in both the house and the Senate, so no magic wand) what specific provisions would you want to include?
The president and vice-president are specifically excluded from the Hatch Act as everything they do is deemed political. No real-world solution would nullify that.
Understood, but that is one of the reasons I mentioned possibly amending the Hatch act and asking for other legislation that might apply.
I’m not particularly looking for an existing piece of legislation that might be bent to the point of breaking to make it happen, and already pointed out the challenges of who enforces it.
But if we draw back from the brink (and I don’t give good odds on it), what do we do to prevent it from happening in the future without depending on a genie to give us overwhelming control?
It is not a possibility that we, as the public, currently posess.
You hemmed yourself in when you specified “real-world solutions.” What you want would take a genie.
I postulated a slim majority in the House and Senate. If you truly think that we’re never going to be there without magical/divine/infernal intervention, well, yes, the thread is pointless.
Yes, there’s also the Veto concerns in the current administration, but this isn’t JUST about right now as I mentioned moments ago.
The Hatch Act is quite specific about federal employees acting in a partisan political manner. I don’t think it needs amendments; it already goes as high up as possible.
Given the limited power the office has to enforce violations, the report suggested potential changes to the law, including a statutory amendment that would allow it to fine Senate-confirmed presidential appointees and commissioned officers, as well as greater investigative power. They also recommended an amendment to clarify which areas of the White House should be off-limits to political activity.
There. Your desired remedies.
“(T)he 2020 election revealed that, at least with respect to an administration’s senior most officials, the Hatch Act is only as effective as the White House decides it will be. Where, as happened here, the White House chooses to ignore the Hatch Act’s requirements, then the American public is left with no protection against senior administration officials using their official authority for partisan political gain in violation of the law,” it reads.
Oh well. Trump, BTW, just appointed a new head of the Office of Special Counsel.
Your OP, however, gave me the impression you wanted the president to be covered. That’s never going to happen.