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

Somebody doesn't seem to know the law of the posit

[raymorris]

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.

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?

Re:There are too many laws

[quantaman]

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.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.)

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

[kilfarsnar]

Violations of the Hatch Act were common during the last 8 years, but none of the current ButtHurts got very exercised about it.

This is tribalism in action. Members of the tribe are not held accountable for doing things that those outside the tribe would be held accountable for. Most people do it. The Democrats were mostly fine with Obama essentially continuing Bush's foreign policy, even though they had railed against the policy when Bush was in charge. Likewise, evangelical Christians, the supposed "values voters", chucked it all out the window to vote for a serial adulterer who bragged about assaulting women. We can imagine the Republican reaction if Obama's personal attorney had paid off a porn star to cover up an extra-marital affair during an election campaign. Yet, we hear little from them now.

Rank hypocrisy is a major feature of how the world currently works. Go looking for it anywhere, and you're likely to find it.

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

[Archangel Michael]

In my years here on earth, I've realized that most people are hypocritical to at least some degree. Including me.

The only solution is when one is being hypocritical, and being called on it, that both sides meet and renounce hypocrisy. The problem is, we devolve into 3 year old mentality when confronted by our own hypocrisy rather than admitting it, we point to "worse" hypocrisy as an excuse for our own hypocrisy.

And because enough people play that game that way, we all end up losing, getting more and more hypocritical. The only solution is for the grownups left, those that can see their own hypocrisy without excusing it, to start calling everyone on their own bullshit. Obama wasn't the greatest president, GWB wasn't the worst. They were more or less equal for all intents and purposes. It is only the edges where they differed substantially.

The question is, why do we continue to excuse bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior? I didn't let my kids get away with it, so why are we letting adults who should know better do it?

Improvement

[technosaurus]

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.
Stop talking about "change", its meaningless since it can be good or bad ... or it could mean whats left in our pockets after taxes.

But, but, Obama!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

LOCK HIM UP!

[Gravis Zero]

Lock him up!
Lock him up!
Lock him up!

What?... you guys seemed to like that chant before. What changed? ;)

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.

Re:There are too many laws

[thegarbz]

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.

Apply that evenly and watch the heads roll...

[Karmashock]

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.