FCC Commissioner Broke the Law By Advocating for Trump, Officials Find (theverge.com)

A newly released letter from government officials finds that Republican FCC commissioner Michael O'Reilly 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." The Verge reports: After he made the comments, the watchdog group American Oversight filed a letter with the Office of Special Counsel, which handles Hatch Act complaints. In response to the group's letter, the Office of Special Counsel said today that O'Rielly did, in fact, violate the Hatch Act. The letter said O'Rielly responded that he was only trying to provide an explanatory answer to how those changes in policy could be stopped, but the office rejected that reasoning. 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.

Comments

He's Not Wrong..

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who dislikes Trump as much as anyone else who dislikes him, I'm afraid I don't see how that counts as advocating for Trump. If you want to avoid changing policies that Trump set, then re-electing Trump is a way to do that, is it not?

Re: He's Not Wrong..

[SirSlud]

Trump is actually the cleanest and the most honest of the bunch.

This is weaponized stupidity.

Re:Somebody doesn't seem to know the law of the po

[Frank Burly]

So you're saying that the Office of Special Counsel went off the rails beginning with the third sentence:

The Hatch Act restricts certain political activities of federal executive branch employees, except for the President and the Vice President. 5 U.S.C. 7321-7326.

?

Re:Somebody doesn't seem to know the law of the po

[Nemyst]

I'm sure we're both reading the same Wikipedia page rather than the actual Act, which conveniently summarizes activities which are allowed and disallowed depending on their level of restriction. Your quoted exemption is only for additional restrictions. All federal employees are still affected by the Hatch Act, the only difference is to which extent. Specifically, even employees not covered by the more restrictive policies still may not:

• - use official authority or influence to interfere with an election
• ...
• - engage in political activity while:
  • - on duty
  • - in a government office
  • - wearing an official uniform
  • - using a government vehicle

Both of these points are applicable to the statement O'Reilly made. Funny how the office tasked with enforcing the Act would know more about it than a random Slashdotter, eh?

Well let's step through it section-by-section

[raymorris]

> 5 U.S.C. 7321-7326

They mention those six, let's step through them one-for-one and see. Below I will quote the statue and then comment on each.

7321
It is the policy of the Congress that employees should be encouraged to exercise fully, freely, and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and to the extent not expressly prohibited by law, their right to participate or to refrain from participating in the political processes of the Nation.
--
7321 says generally he, and all others, should be allowed to talk about politics.

7322 definitions, nothing interesting

7323
a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), an employee MAY take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may notâ"
(1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;
(2) knowingly solicit, accept, or receive a political contribution from any person, unless [There is a labor union involved]

[Here's subsection (B), which is the "except" above:

b)
(1) An employee of the Federal Election Commission (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate) [which he is] may not request or receive from, or give to, an employee, a Member of Congress, or an officer of a uniformed service a political contribution.
(2)
(A) No employee described under subparagraph (B) [list of agencies which does NOT include the FCC] (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate), may take an active part in political management or political campaigns.
(B) The provisions of subparagraph (A) shall apply toâ"
(i) an employee ofâ" (list of federal agencies)
--

So far he's doubly exempt - he's appointed by the President AND he doesn't work for any of the listed agencies.

7323 continued

3) No employee of the Criminal Division or National Security Division of the Department of Justice (except one appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate), may take an active part in political management or political campaigns.

(c) An employee retains the right to vote as he chooses and to express his opinion on political subjects and candidates.
--

(C) might be worth reading twice. Even employees covered by the Hatch Act are allowed to express their opinion on political subjects and candidates. They are not allowed to run political campaigns.

7324 might be easier to read backward. It says what's not allowed, then lists several circumstances under which it IS allowed, including by a person appointed by the President, such as an FCC commissioner:

(2) in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an individual employed or holding office in the Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof;
(3) while wearing a uniform or official insignia identifying the office or position of the employee; or
(4) using any vehicle owned or leased by the Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof.
(b)
(1) An employee described in paragraph (2) of this subsection may engage in political activity otherwise prohibited by subsection (a) if the costs associated with that political activity are not paid for by money derived from the Treasury of the United States.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an employeeâ"
(A) the duties and responsibilities of whose position continue outside normal duty hours and while away from the normal duty post; and
(B) who isâ"
(i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or
(ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in relations with foreign powers or in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
--
The last bit may be confusing, b

Re:Well let's step through it section-by-section

[Frank Burly]

I appreciate that you took the time to do this, but the OSC's letter is pretty clear. Mr. O'Reilly is an employee of an Executive Agency, and made an appearance at CPAC as an FCC commissioner where he endorsed Trump for re-election, and thereby violated 7323(1)(1) by"use[ing] his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election."

7322 definitions, nothing interesting

I think your problem started with skipping 7322, which defines "employee" in a way that includes Mr. O'Reilly. Exception 7323(2)(A) does not apply because Mr. O'Reilly was not working as a campaign manager. 7324 is not the cited violation, so the exceptions are irrelevant. (The distinction between "official authority" (7323) and "on duty" (7324) is also relevant.)

Thanks for that

[raymorris]

Thanks for that. I hadn't read the OSC letter. So the theory is using official authority to influence the outcome of an election.

I'm not sure which election they are referring to. Given subsection (c), which explicitly states they CAN state their political opinions, I'm not too sure his statement was an unlawful "use of official authority" either, it sounded more like stating an opinion to me.