Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Sunday May 06 2018, @03:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the you-scratch-my-back dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow3941

Republican FCC commissioner Michael O'Rielly broke a federal law preventing officials from advocating for political candidates when he told a crowd that one way to avoid policy changes was to "make sure that President Trump gets reelected," according to a newly released letter from government officials. O'Rielly was warned by the officials about making similar comments in the future.

The Hatch Act bars many federal employees from using their offices to influence an election. During the conservative CPAC conference in February, which was also attended by FCC chairman Ajit Pai, O'Rielly was asked about how to avoid rapid swings in policy ushered in by a new administration. "I think what we can do is make sure as conservatives that we elect good people to both the House, the Senate, and make sure that President Trump gets reelected," he responded, adding that there would also be a fight in the US Senate over net neutrality rules.

[...] The office said it has sent a warning letter to O'Rielly this time, but will consider other infractions "a willful and knowing violation of the law" that could lead to legal action.

O'Rielly's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the letter.

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/1/17308418/fcc-commissioner-orielly-trump-law


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday May 06 2018, @11:05AM (3 children)

    by deimtee (3272) on Sunday May 06 2018, @11:05AM (#676327) Journal

    From wikipedia :

    The 1939 Act forbids the intimidation or bribery of voters and restricts political campaign activities by federal employees. It prohibits using any public funds designated for relief or public works for electoral purposes. It forbids officials paid with federal funds from using promises of jobs, promotion, financial assistance, contracts, or any other benefit to coerce campaign contributions or political support. It provides that persons below the policy-making level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen, but must abstain from "any active part" in political campaigns, using this language to specify those who are exempt.

    The Hatch Act seems to be more about prohibiting bribery and not using Federal funds and employees to campaign. If the comments he made really do violate the Hatch act it looks to me like The Hatch Act would fall to a First Amendment challenge.

    --
    If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @03:13PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06 2018, @03:13PM (#676373)

    No, it wouldn't, as a government employee he can't be advocating while on the job. If he wants to do it as a private citizen and disclaim that he's doing it as a private citizen, then he wouldn't be in violation.

    The problem here is that he was doing it as a government official which leads to all sorts of problems that are a lot harder to investigate and deal with.

    The first amendment isn't absolute, and one of those exceptions is where you don't interfere with elections or give the appearance that the government is interfering with elections either.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by deimtee on Sunday May 06 2018, @09:25PM (1 child)

      by deimtee (3272) on Sunday May 06 2018, @09:25PM (#676446) Journal

      Somebody asked him a question. He gave what can only be described as an accurate answer. If that violates the Hatch Act, then it seems that the Hatch Act would violate "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech". The point at which you stretch the Hatch Act to cover what he did is also the point where you stretch it to breaking the First Amendment.

      Personal opinion is that it doesn't violate the First, but neither did he violate the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act is about not using Federal resources to campaign, and answering a question is a long way from that.

      --
      If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
      • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday May 07 2018, @06:52PM

        by urza9814 (3954) on Monday May 07 2018, @06:52PM (#676736) Journal

        Somebody asked him a question. He gave what can only be described as an accurate answer. If that violates the Hatch Act, then it seems that the Hatch Act would violate "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech". The point at which you stretch the Hatch Act to cover what he did is also the point where you stretch it to breaking the First Amendment.

        There's little point in discussing the First Amendment to the Constitution once you've already thrown out Articles I and II.

        The President *doesn't* set policy, that's the job of the Legislative branch. The Executive branch *implements* that policy. Of course I wouldn't disagree that implementation details are themselves a form of policy, but it seems pretty strange to focus on the President alone as the rock that's going to keep the policy stable by playing with implementation details when the entire policy could be scrapped without his involvement. An actual truthful answer would be "don't change the government", not "re-elect President Trump". Of course, that would also mean telling people to re-elect incumbent Democrats too, which O'Rielly probably didn't want to do. And that's what makes it a violation of the Hatch Act -- it's NOT an honest answer to a legitimate question, it's an incorrect answer designed to favor a specific candidate.

        Of course, it's a violation that he's likely to get away with since it's a common misconception shared by much of the US population -- including yourself apparently. But if *O'Rielly* didn't know the difference, he's woefully incompetent for his current position. If he did know the difference, and just chose to single out Trump anyway, that's campaigning and does violate the Hatch act if any federal funds were supporting it. So is he a criminal, or is he just incompetent? Is one really that much better than the other?