Slashdot Mirror
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.
I suspect everyone breaks one law or another every day and doesn't know it.
Yep! Its ridiculous to expect someone to follows the laws that apply specifically to their jobs. As a doctor, its really just too much to expect for me to follow the laws regarding prescribing opioids. Just too many damn laws!
This is bizarre. I wonder if anyone involved in this has READ the Hatch Act.
The Hatch Act doesn't apply to all federal employees. One group the Hatch Act says it does NOT apply to is:
--
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 the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
--
The FCC commissioners are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Their job is to determine policies to pursued in the nationwide administration of Federal laws related to communications.
His job description is PRECISELY that which the Hatch Act, by its own terms, does not apply to.
It would make no sense to say that those senior officials who make political decisions, such the the Secretary of State and the FCC commissioners, aren't allowed to talk about politics. Net neutrality etc are essentially political issues, and it's the commissioner's job. Of course he's going to take a political stand! That's his job, deciding policy.
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.
?
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?
We'll it's a good thing Trump hasn't broken any laws himself yet.
This is bizarre. I wonder if anyone involved in this has READ the Hatch Act.
Yes, they probably even read further than the Wikipedia entry!
I'm definitely not an expert but was curious so I checked a few sources on the matter.
As near as I can tell only the POTUS and VP are completely exempt from the law. The provisions you pointed out don't mean that positions subject to Senate confirmation are exempt from the entire act, just portions of it.
Here I don't think the problem was that he was an FCC commissioner appearing at CPAC (though I think that breaks the spirit of the law). But that speaking as an FCC commissioner he advocated for Trump's candidacy.
If he had been appearing at CPAC just as himself he'd probably be fine.
I stole this Sig
I suspect everyone breaks one law or another every day and doesn't know it.
Sure... but this is also a law he really shouldn't have broken.
His job is to help administer the FCC, not be a partisan hack speaking at CPAC and pumping Trump's candidacy.
Normal ethical people understand their roles come with a responsibility beyond partisanship and tend to avoid repeatedly violating laws meant to ensure ethical behaviour.
I stole this Sig
It is likely that the Office of the Special Counsel has a better handle on the Hatch Act and the relevant case history than raymorris does
> 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
Everyone talks about "change". Nobody wants change for change sake. What we want is improvement. Even on volatile topics like pro-choice/life there is middleground that gets left off the table because it doesn't invoke an emotional response in their demographic ... making adoption easier comes to mind. ... or it could mean whats left in our pockets after taxes.
Stop talking about "change", its meaningless since it can be good or bad
If you want to know what the Hatch Act says, the Act itself is probably shorter than that Comey article. You can see for yourself exactly what it says, with no worry that the reporter is spinning it.
Are you a lawyer who specializes in this area of law? Because I'm not.
A good honest reporter will actually talk to experts who know what they're talking about and include that information in that article. We're trying to parse a weirdly formatted document making constant assumptions about the meaning of terms and phrases that might be completely unjustified.
Perhaps the most interesting bit is 7324 subsection (B).
It says that people who are always on duty, because they are appointed officials rather than 9-5 employees, still have their first amendment rights. They can voice their political opinions just like everyone else, and the "not while on duty" rule doesn't apply to them since they are on duty 24/7.
I think that's part of what you're getting wrong.
It's not saying they're on duty 24/7, it's saying their position continues outside of normal work hours so at any moment you can be on duty. For instance, if you're appearing at CPAC as an FCC commissioner you're on duty, however, if you're at a BBQ chatting with friends you're not on duty. Unless one of those friends happens to be a CEO of a telecom bugging you about a policy and they you might be on duty again. It means your on-duty status is determined by the role you're playing in the moment, not by whether you're in the office during regular working hours.
But the office of special council's letter didn't actually talk about 7324, it talked about 7323(a)(1), using his position to interfere in an election. O'Reilly was appearing at CPAC in his capacity as an FCC commissioner when he advocated for a specific candidate in an election.
It's not a novel interpretation, Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services got nabbed for a very similar infraction.
I stole this Sig
I just happened across that very same quote from LBJ yesterday (in a completely different context). And I thought to myself, "...and the GOP/Trump are still profiting from this advice today."
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Dude, Kellyanne Conway alone has as many Hatch Act violations as the whole eight years of the Obama administration!
The current administration has taken graft and corruption to heights unheard of in the First World. Please, continue to blame Obama for all your problems, though.
dom
Can you find an actual source, as opposed to CauseOfAction.org and the RWNJ "Deep State" echo chamber?
Didn't think so.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Lock him up!
Lock him up!
Lock him up!
What?... you guys seemed to like that chant before. What changed? ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
As eluded to in the article you linked, the problem for Sebelius was using tax payer money, under 7324. That's why she paid the money back from political funds.
7323(a) is limited by 7323(c), and the First Amendment.
Appointed policy makers (which are political positions by nature) can, like everyone else, state their political opinions. 7323(c) states that clearly, in case there was any confusion. 7323(a) says they can't use their OFFICIAL AUTHORITY to affect an election, such as by ordering government resources, employees or money, be used to advance a political campaign. It does NOT say they can't state their opinions. Subsection (c) makes it very clear they can state their opinions.
That's if it wasn't obvious - politics is arguing about policy (politics and policy are from the same root word), so obviously policy makers are going to talk about politics - that's their job.
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.
I suspect everyone breaks one law or another every day and doesn't know it.
Yes but how many people break laws specifically targeted at them while they occupy an office or position intended as the specific target of the law?
Sure I probably break some laws, but you won't find me for instance breaking the Professional Engineering Act in my country. Likewise I expect someone in the employ of the federal government not to break a law that specifically is intended to apply to federal government employees.
Trump is actually the cleanest and the most honest of the bunch.
This is weaponized stupidity.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Quite a few federal officials are taking political sides against the ethics of their office. Side X doing it doesn't excuse side Y doing it. However, it does make the calls to enforce such laws somewhere between hypocrisy and tyranny if they are only applied when an official goes one way but not the other.
The series of incidents are well known and all controversial indifferent to who said what when. I won't bother going through them because whatever I say will be gainsaid by a member of which ever tribe.
For real unity here... for real ethical clarity and purity... these laws have been applied evenly. You can't throw the book at one person for doing it and then say "it was an honest mistake" when someone from the other tribe did it.
Even handed or the entire principle becomes a crass and tyrannical pretext to power and nothing more.
I think too often people look at this sort of thing and think it can't get worse. That stability cannot tip over some point where instead of trending towards stability we will trend towards instability.
Those that welcome such events should consider that what real instability looks like... look around the world at countries that come unraveled. The horror and death.
Such as the wages of corruption. Such is the price of not having integrity. By all means... Burn the FCC official you don't like because he rolled back Net Neutrality and of course was appointed by Trump who is the second coming of Hitler/Satan. Whatever you hyperbolic scree.
Do it.
But when you do it, set a principle and a precedent. Make your bed because you will lie in it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Except people from both sides have been hit and mentioned several times in this comments section..
But those who have been hit were covered under the Act.
That is clearly not the case here from a plain reading of the Act. O'Rielley is a Presidential appointee, and appointees are explicitly excluded from the Act.
---
Subsection (b)
(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.
---
He is an appointee. He used no taxpayer funds. He simply made a statement. The Act specifically exempts appointees.
This is simply political grandstanding.
It's also rank with the stench of fear and desperation on the part of Democrats.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Apparently you did nothing more than look at the domain. For if you actually LOOKED at the link, you'd see links to the OSC that state she violated the Hatch act. But no, you'd rather shoot the messenger than accept the message. I guess CNN and MSNBC are the only accepted sources for you, though, so keep that mind shut!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
As shocking as it is, Trump is actually the cleanest and the most honest of the bunch... This is precisely the reason the media is 97% negative on him, and the DC swamp is universally opposed to almost anything he does. Pretty sad how they used the Russia hoax, with zero evidence after 2 years, to completely castrate the people's president.
I see the Russian trolls are out in force today.