LET US GREATLY AMEND THE FEDERAL HATCH ACT
More about the Hatch Act than you might have been interested to know
Back quite a number of years ago, working as a field engineer for the USDA, I never entertained the thought that I could be a political activist. In fact I only voted, for the use of my voice. This is an anonymous voice which was approved as a federal employee. I certainly could have been more active than I was, I could have taken the time and effort to converse with the Human Resources staff, for any particular questions. But the fact of the matter was that there was little incentive to do so, and to keep one’s politics to oneself, including from management, was the best policy it seemed. While in the field, working with private contractors, landowners, tribes, conservation groups, which brought inherent problems front and center, I really did not have an outlet to effect changes which I may have seen as an obvious problem at the time. To talk to one’s representatives directly would have been frowned upon. Going through the established agency chain of command with ideas also may not have yielded fruit as well. This depended upon the particular problem of course, but most often everyone stayed in their lane of the job description for which their employment was based upon. And voicing a political view other than the standard of the agency was generally not done to any extent. The Hatch Act is a law from 1939 which forbade certain political activities as a civil servant. Certainly there should be guidelines, and the benefit of the law in keeping the image of the civil servant as only doing his duty, not wasting taxpayers money, and appearing to toe the line of nonpartisanship has its upside. However, overall I believe the law is detrimental to the improvement of government services. This is what I have written about today. First my verse and what has been recently discussed onTwitter on the Hatch Act with the three quotes following:
*Federal grants to state and local governments totaled $1.2 trillion in 2022. State and local governments spent $3.5 trillion on direct general government expenditures in fiscal year 2020.1 States spent $1.7 trillion directly and local governments—cities, townships, counties, school districts, and special districts—spent $1.8 trillion directly. In 2022, around 19.23 million people were working for state and local governments in the United States. According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the federal workforce is composed of an estimated 2.1 million civilian workers. Estimate of state and local government employees under the Hatch Act (ignoring any state laws pertaining to political activity) using proportion of Federal funds to state and local funds:
Estimated number of state and local government employees working under Hatch Act
(1.2)/(3.5)=0.34285714285
19.23x0.34285714285=6.59 or 6.6 million employees
This may be off, but I wished to pin down a number.
Three quotes before I show more of the particulars on the Hatch Act, quotes which are applicable in my thinking. “…every one of that society…” Does the Hatch Act prevent this from actually happening?
“Freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power vested in it.”
— John Locke.
John Locke FRS (29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704) was an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers and commonly known as the "father of liberalism". Considered one of the first of the British empiricists, following the tradition of Francis Bacon, Locke is equally important to social contract theory. His work greatly affected the development of epistemology and political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American Revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence. Internationally, Locke's political-legal principles continue to have a profound influence on the theory and practice of limited representative government and the protection of basic rights and freedoms under the rule of law.
Amendments are not necessarily pipe dreams.
“There are plenty of things that need amendment.”
— C. A. Dana.
Charles Anderson Dana (August 8, 1819 – October 17, 1897) was an American journalist, author, and senior government official. He was a top aide to Horace Greeley as the managing editor of the powerful Republican newspaper New-York Tribune until 1862. During the American Civil War, he served as Assistant Secretary of War, playing especially the role of liaison between the War Department and General Ulysses S. Grant. In 1868 he became the editor and part-owner of The New York Sun. He at first appealed to working class Democrats but after 1890 became a champion of business-oriented conservatism. Dana was an avid art collector of paintings and porcelains and boasted of being in possession of many items not found in several European museums.
I contend that the Hatch Act can stifle teamwork, partnerships and collaborations within government, and between the public and government. The quote below was the closest I could find to express my opinion on the roadblocks to political speech within government employees.
“Creating a better world requires teamwork, partnerships, and collaboration, as we need an entire army of companies to work together to build a better world within the next few decades. This means corporations must embrace the benefits of cooperating with one another.”
— Simon Mainwaring
Simon Mainwaring is a branding expert and author of We First: How Brands and Consumers Use Social Media to Build a Better World (Palgrave Macmillan 2011) and Lead With We: The Business Revolution that Will Save Our Future (Matt Holt/BenBella 2021). He is the founder and CEO of Culver City, California-based We First Inc., a brand consultancy.
Below is the Hatch Act as described in Wikipedia giving a history and brief overview.
The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of individuals principally employed by state, District of Columbia, or local executive agencies and who work in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants. Usually, employment with a state, D.C., or local agency constitutes the principal employment of the employee in question. However, when an employee holds two or more jobs, principal employment is generally deemed to be that job which accounts for the most work time and the most earned income.
The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of individuals principally employed by state, District of Columbia, or local executive agencies and who work in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants.
The Hatch Act of 1939, An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law. Its main provision prohibits civil-service employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president and vice president, from engaging in some forms of political activity. It became law on August 2, 1939. The law was named for Senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico. It was most recently amended in 2012.
Widespread allegations that local Democratic Party politicians used employees of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the congressional elections of 1938 provided the immediate impetus for the passage of the Hatch Act. Criticism centered on swing states such as Kentucky, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. In Pennsylvania, Republicans and dissident Democrats publicized evidence that Democratic politicians were consulted on the appointment of WPA administrators and case workers and that they used WPA jobs to gain unfair political advantage. In 1938, a series of newspaper articles exposed WPA patronage, and political contributions in return for employment, prompting an investigation by the Senate Campaign Expenditures Committee, headed by Sen. Morris Sheppard, a Texas Democrat.
Despite that investigation's inconclusive findings, many in both parties determined to take action against the growing power of the WPA and its chief administrator, Harry Hopkins, an intimate of President Franklin Roosevelt. The Act was sponsored by Senator Carl Hatch, a Democrat from New Mexico. At the time, Roosevelt was struggling to purge the Democratic party of its more conservative members, who were increasingly aligned with the administration's Republican opponents. The president considered vetoing the legislation or allowing it to become law without his signature, but instead signed it on the last day he could do so. His signing message welcomed the legislation as if he had called for it, and emphasized the protection his administration would provide for political expression on the part of public employees.
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:
(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 the nationwide administration of Federal laws.
The act also precludes federal employees from membership in "any political organization which advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government", a provision meant to prohibit membership in organizations on the far left and far right, such as the Communist Party USA and the German-American Bund.
An amendment on July 19, 1940, extended the Act to certain employees of state and local governments whose positions are primarily paid for by federal funds. It has been interpreted to bar political activity on the part of employees of state agencies administering federal unemployment insurance programs and appointed local law enforcement agency officials with oversight of federal grant funds. The Hatch Act bars state and local government employees from running for public office if any federal funds support the position, even if the position is funded almost entirely with local funds.
The Merit Systems Protection Board and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) are responsible for enforcement of the Hatch Act. During the Trump administration, watchdog group CREW claimed the White House or the OSC overlooked apparent Hatch Act violations until groups like CREW or government whistleblowers filed official complaints.
Supreme Court challenges
Further information: United Public Workers v. Mitchell and United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers
The Supreme Court has several times declined to hear challenges to the act and has twice upheld its constitutionality. In a 1947 case brought by the CIO, a divided court found that Congress had properly exercised its authority as long as it had not affected voting rights. Justice William O. Douglas objected to the assertion that "clean politics" required the act's restrictions: "it would hardly seem to be imperative to muzzle millions of citizens because some of them, if left to their constitutional freedoms, might corrupt the political process."In 1973, in a case brought by the National Association of Letter Carriers, a 6 to 3 decision found the act neither too broad nor unclear. The court's three most liberal justices, Douglas, William J. Brennan, and Thurgood Marshall, dissented. Douglas wrote: "It is no concern of government what an employee does in his or her spare time, whether religion, recreation, social work or politics is his hobby, unless what he or she does impairs efficiency or other facets of the merits of his job."
From the US Justice Department, the in-depth portions of the law. Certainly for any employee to partake in political activities one would have to have a long talk with the Human Resources staff, for guidance. This in itself is a deterrent for many low level employees who may be in field offices across the country. It would require time and travel, which the employee would probably have to provide themselves. It’s very cumbersome, and confusing. Also, if one’s political views do not match upper management’s this in itself is a deterrent. Why bother, even if one can see needed improvements in the overall structure of the governmental agencies. I’m uncertain how the guidelines below correspond across agencies, I would assume there might be differences, some tightening of restrictions for some agencies. This may be too dry for many readers, but I included it to give the public a better idea of the current requirements under the Hatch Act. It appears that the more of a political role one might hold in government service, the less the restrictions. Although this might make sense, it appears all low level employees in the “further restricted” category are stymied in personal development of citizenship, and empowerment can be detrimental to the overall mission. This is my opinion, based upon personal experience within government employment. There is animosity among many in the federal government, and occasionally state government, toward the political leaders' treatment of the government servants. There is also a high level of distrust. Perhaps lessening the Hatch Act toward lower levels, as long as there were still appropriate guidelines, might lead to more actual cohesion and teamwork.
Permitted and Prohibited Activities Overview
Less Restricted Employees: Permitted and Prohibited Activities
Further Restricted Employees: Permitted and Prohibited Activities
Social Media and the Hatch Act | Hatch Act: Candidate Photographs
PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES
All Department of Justice employees are subject to the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. 7323(a) and 7324(a), which generally prohibits Department employees from engaging in partisan political activity while on duty, in a federal facility or using federal property. Political activity is activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group. The statute carries serious penalties including REMOVAL from federal employment.
The Hatch Act applies to all federal employees; however, application of its restrictions is broken down into two groups, based on position.
"Less restricted" employees, including most career employees in the executive branch, are able to participate actively in political management or partisan political campaigns, while off-duty, outside a federal facility and not using federal property.
“Further restricted" employees are held to stricter rules that preclude active participation in political management or partisan political campaigns, even off-duty. The following Department of Justice employees are "further restricted" by statute: all career Senior Executive Service (SES) employees; administrative law judges; employees in the Criminal Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Security Division; and criminal investigators and explosives enforcement officers in ATF. Further restricted employees may not campaign for or against candidates or otherwise engage in political activity in concert with a political party, a candidate for partisan political office, or a partisan political group.
Considering the Department’s mission, it has been determined that, as a matter of Department policy, all political appointees will be subject to the rules that govern “further restricted” employees under the Hatch Act to ensure there is not an appearance that politics plays any part in the Department’s day to day operations. Guidance to all Department employees is provided in two memoranda from the Assistant Attorney General for Administration, dated August 30, 2022, one to career employees and one to non-career appointees.
The Attorney General has issued an additional memo for non-career appointees.
Department employees who have additional questions on political activity should consult their component’s ethics official.
Be aware that Hatch Act restrictions apply only to Federal employees and generally do not apply to contractor personnel. Other authorities restrict conduct by contractor personnel. For additional guidance on political activities of contractor personnel contact your component’s Bureau Procurement Chief (https://www.justice.gov/jmd/bureau-procurement-chiefs) or General Counsel.
LESS RESTRICTED EMPLOYEES: PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES
Less restricted employees may:
Be candidates for public office in nonpartisan elections
Register and vote as they choose
Assist in voter registration drives
Contribute money to political campaigns, political parties or partisan political groups
Attend political fundraising functions
Attend and be active at political rallies and meetings
Join and be an active member of political clubs or parties
Hold office in political clubs and parties
Sign and circulate nominating petitions
Campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections
Make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections
Distribute campaign literature in partisan elections
Volunteer to work on a partisan political campaign
Put a bumper sticker on a personal vehicle and park the vehicle in a government-owned or subsidized parking lot, but may not use the vehicle in the course of official business
Display signs on their lawns and in their residences, and in similar personal circumstances
Express opinions about candidates and issues (if the expression is political activity directed at the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office or partisan political group, the expression is not permitted while the employee is on duty, in any federal room or building, while wearing a uniform or official insignia or using any federally-owned or leased vehicle)
Less restricted employees may not:
Use their official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election, e.g.:
may not use official title/position while engaged in political activity
may not invite subordinate employees to political events or otherwise suggest to subordinates that they attend political events or undertake any partisan political activity
Solicit, accept, or receive a donation or contribution for a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group, e.g.:
may not host a political fundraiser
may not invite others to a political fundraiser
may not collect contributions or sell tickets to political fundraising functions
Be candidates for public office in partisan political elections (In certain designated communities, including the Washington DC suburbs, an employee may run for office in a local partisan election but only as an independent candidate and may receive, but not solicit, contributions 5 C.F.R. § 733.101-107.
Knowingly solicit or discourage the participation in any political activity of anyone who has business pending before their employing office (The only statutory exception is for soliciting, accepting or receiving a political contribution to a multi-candidate political committee from a fellow member of a federal labor organization or certain other employee organizations, as long as the solicited employee is not a subordinate and the activity does not violate the restrictions noted below).
Engage in political activity while on duty, in a federal facility, wearing a uniform or official insignia, or using a federally-owned or leased vehicle, e.g:
may not wear political buttons/T shirts/signs
may not display/distribute campaign materials
may not perform campaign-related chores
may not make political contributions
may not post a comment to a blog or social media site advocating for or against a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group
may not use any email account or social media to distribute, send, or forward content that advocates for or against a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group
FURTHER RESTRICTED EMPLOYEES: PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES
Further restricted employees may:
Register and vote as they choose
Assist in non-partisan voter registration drives
Participate in campaigns where none of the candidates represent a political party
Contribute money to political campaigns, political parties, or partisan political groups
Attend political fund raising functions (but not non-career appointees)
Attend political rallies and meetings (but not non-career appointees)
Join political clubs or parties (but not hold office)
Sign nominating petitions
Campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, or municipal ordinances
Put a bumper sticker on a personal vehicle and park the vehicle in a government-owned or subsidized parking lot, but may not use the vehicle in the course of official business
Display signs on their lawns and in their residences, and in similar personal circumstances
PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES
Further restricted employees may not:
Volunteer in any capacity in connection with a partisan candidate or partisan election
Run as a candidate for public office in a partisan election
Campaign for or against a candidate in a partisan election
Host a political fundraiser
Invite others to a political fundraiser
Make a campaign speech
Collect contributions or sell tickets to political fund raising functions
Distribute campaign material printed by a partisan political organization
Organize or manage political rallies or meetings
Hold office in a political club or party
Take part in deliberations or proceedings of party conventions or convention committees
Circulate a nominating petition
Work to register voters for one party only
Be active on behalf of a candidate at a political rally or meeting
Use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election, e.g.:
may not use official titles or positions while engaged in political activity
may not invite subordinate employees to political events or otherwise suggest to subordinates that they attend political events or undertake any partisan political activity
Act as recorder, watcher, challenger, or similar officer at polling places in consultation or coordination with a political party, partisan political group, or a candidate for partisan political office
Drive voters to polling places in consultation or coordination with a political party, partisan political group, or a candidate for partisan political office
Engage in political activity while on duty, in any federal room or building, while wearing a uniform or official insignia, or using any federally-owned or leased vehicle, e.g.:
may not wear or display partisan political buttons, T-shirts, signs or other items
may not make political contributions to a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group
may not post a comment to a blog or a social media site that advocates for or against a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group
may not use any e-mail account or social media to distribute, send or forward content that advocates for or against a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office or partisan political group (* at all times, further restricted employees may not post links to web sites created by or leading to information created by a political party, partisan candidate or campaign)
5 C.F.R. § 734.101-702
SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE HATCH ACT
As a general matter, the Department of Justice authorizes some limited personal use of government time and equipment, including the Internet, where there is negligible cost to the government and no interference with official business. However, partisan political activity in the workplace is treated differently than other personal use activities. Since partisan political activity in the workplace is prohibited by the Hatch Act, employees may not use the Internet or any other government equipment to engage in partisan political activities.
Federal employees retain the right to have and express personal opinions about candidates, elections and political parties outside of the workplace, using their personal computers, phones, etc. However, they need to have a heightened awareness of what they can and cannot post on a social media site. Employees using Facebook, Twitter, Linked In and other social media sites must be careful that they set and monitor their privacy and other social media settings so that postings to their sites do not link political commentary with their DOJ title or position.
Most employees are “less restricted” under the Hatch Act and may be active in partisan political activity while not on duty or in a federal facility. Those who are “further restricted” include employees in the career Senior Executive Service (SES), National Security Division, Criminal Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (Criminal Investigators, Explosive Enforcement), Administrative Law Judges and all political appointees.
The following list of permitted and prohibited activities will help employees decipher what they may and may not do in terms of political activity using social media. The most important overarching Hatch Act restrictions to always keep in mind when using social media are:
(1) no partisan political activity while on duty, in a federal facility, wearing a uniform or official insignia, or using a government vehicle; (2) no soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions at any time; and (3) no use of official authority or influence, including use of official title, to affect the result of an election.
In many cases, most Federal employees MAY . . . (but, please note specific additional limits):
Write a blog expressing support of or opposition to partisan political candidates or parties (note: not while on duty, in a federal facility; no use of official title in connection with the blog; no soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions through blog; further restricted employees: cannot take an active part in partisan political management and campaigns; therefore, cannot post anything on a blog that was created by or leads to information created by the party, partisan candidate or campaign)
List official title, only on the profile/intro page, of sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Linked In
Forward a political email from an employee’s government email to employee’s own personal email address (note: an employee cannot then forward the email from the personal address to others while on duty, in a federal facility, etc., even if using employee’s own smart phone or computer)
Campaign for or against a political party, partisan political group, or candidate for partisan public office on a Facebook page (note: not on duty, in a federal facility; no soliciting/accepting/receiving campaign contributions; can’t use official position to bolster the statements posted; supervisors may never send to subordinate employees an email directed at the success or failure of a political party, partisan political group or partisan candidate; therefore, messages and posts must not be sent to an exclusive group that includes subordinates but to all followers, friends; further restricted: no posting links to political web sites in any case
Post a link to the website of a political party, partisan candidate, or partisan political group on a Facebook page or blog (note: not while on duty, in a federal facility; no soliciting/accepting/receiving campaign contributions; link can’t lead directly to donation/contribution page; further restricted: no posting links to political web sites)
Become a “friend”, “fan” or “like” the Facebook page of a political party, partisan political group or partisan candidate (note: not while on duty, in a federal facility; no soliciting/accepting/receiving campaign contributions; further restricted: must adjust privacy settings so that lists of “friends” “likes” “interests” and “pages” with links are visible only to the employee)
Follow the Twitter account of a political party, partisan political group, or partisan candidate’s campaign (note: no soliciting/accepting/receiving campaign contributions, not while on duty, in a federal facility; further restricted: only if employee’s list of whom he follows is hidden from his own friends and followers)
Additional helpful information from the Office of Special Counsel:
https ://osc.gov/Services/Pages/HatchAct-FAQ.aspx
HATCH ACT RESTRICTIONS: CANDIDATE PHOTOGRAPHS
Displaying pictures of candidates for partisan political office in the federal workplace is considered engaging in political activity and barred by the Hatch Act.
This applies to the President, who is a candidate for re-election. Therefore, federal employees may not display pictures of the President UNLESS:
It is a single copy of the official portrait of the President displayed in a traditional manner; OR
It is an official photo of the President at an official government event, such as a ribbon-cutting or bill-signing (newspaper, magazine photos of official events do not qualify)
In addition to the two exceptions noted above for display of Presidential candidate photographs, federal employees may not display pictures of any partisan candidate UNLESS:
The photo was on display in advance of the election season; and
The employee is in the photo; and
The photo is a personal one (depicting a personal relationship, such as attendance at a wedding), and
The employee has no political purpose in displaying the photograph
RUNNING FOR OFFICE
If a federal employee or federal employee’s spouse runs for public office, the federal employee should notify his or her ethics official. The ethics official can then advise the employee as to the ethics rules that pertain to that circumstance. Donations to campaigns are among the issues that arise when a federal employee or federal employee’s spouse runs for office. Federal employees must remain mindful that a perception of bias can arise if donors to the campaign have some connection to matters in which the federal employee is participating in his or her official capacity. Employees therefore have a duty to regularly review lists of donors, identifying any that could raise appearance issues. Employees must consider whether donors are prohibited sources under the gift rules, 5 CFR Section 2635.201, et seq., and whether the donation raises concerns under the “catch-all” provision in 5 CFR Section 2635.502. Employees should contact ethics officials when these questions arise in order to discuss appropriate next steps.
I looked at current legislation directed at amending the Hatch Act in the 118th Congress. Senator Ben Ray Lujan, [D-NM] has the only legislation listed at this time. Senator Lujan’s bill is meant to address the abuses of the Hatch Act repeatedly in the Trump Administration among high level government officials. We all realize that these abuses may have been mild compared to other Trump antics. Trump’s types of leaders are the reason for strong laws being essential at any weakness to be exploited. Regardless of the abuses, I still contend that a lessening of the restrictions to lower level civil servants would be the democratic thing to do. I have included Senator Lujan’s press release on this proposed bill.
S.1629 - Hatch Act Enforcement Transparency and Accountability Act
118th Congress (2023-2024)
Sponsor: Sen. Lujan, Ben Ray [D-NM] (Introduced 05/16/2023) NO Cosponsors
Committees: Senate - Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Latest Action: Senate - 05/16/2023 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Official Title as Introduced
A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to increase the accountability of the Office of Special Counsel in enforcing certain provisions of that title vigorously, consistently, and without regard to the political affiliation, career status, or personal characteristics of individuals subject to those provisions, and for other purposes.
Press Release below from Senator Lujun
Newsroom • Press Releases
• May 16, 2023
Luján Introduces Legislation to Increase Hatch Act Enforcement, Transparency, and Accountability
Washington D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) introduced the Hatch Act Enforcement Transparency and Accountability Act, legislation that increases fairness and impartiality of the Hatch Act by informing Congress of potential violations.
Enacted in 1939, the Hatch Act serves to ensure the federal government administers its duties in a nonpartisan fashion, protects federal employees from political pressure, and helps ensure that federal employees are promoted based on merit rather than political affiliation.
For alleged violations of the Hatch Act, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is authorized to investigate and prosecute violations before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). In recent years however, OSC’s enforcement has been inconsistent. In fact, OSC revealed to news media that, in one four-year period, 17 political appointees violated the Hatch Act, yet the office only penalized one, raising serious questions about the enforcement of the Hatch Act.
Senator Luján’s legislation increases transparency by requiring the OSC to notify Congressional leaders when it declines to investigate allegations and requires an annual report that details whether alleged violations were investigated or not.
“The Hatch Act was signed into law to prevent public officials from using their position for political gain while protecting federal employees from political influence. However, when potential violations do occur, the Office of Special Counsel has failed to investigate and prosecute some of the most serious claims, undermining the American people and the rule of law,” said Senator Luján. “Today, I’m introducing legislation that increases enforcement of the Hatch Act by providing clarity and Congressional oversight for any potential abuses. It’s unacceptable when the line between politics and government is ignored. That’s why my legislation increases accountability to ensure Americans can have confidence in the public servants who work for them.”
This legislation is endorsed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), The Project On Government Oversight (POGO), and End Citizens United.
“The Hatch Act is a crucial piece of legislation that sets important standards for federal employees’ political activities. But without meaningful enforcement, its impact is diminished,” said End Citizens United // Let America Vote Action Fund President Tiffany Muller. “The Hatch Act Enforcement Transparency and Accountability Act seeks to address this glaring weakness by strengthening oversight and increasing transparency from the Office of Special Counsel. It’s a much-needed step towards ensuring violations are met with appropriate consequences, promoting greater accountability, and upholding the integrity of our democratic institutions. We thank Senator Luján for his continued leadership and commitment to strengthening our democracy–and we urge both chambers of Congress to quickly pass it.”
“During the last administration, we saw political appointees flagrantly violate the Hatch Act on multiple occasions without any consequence. While the current administration has had fewer senior level violations to date, OSC’s decision making has remained cloaked in mystery. It is time to bring transparency into this process to ensure that these enforcement decisions are being made on a sound and consistent legal basis,” said Donald Sherman, Senior Vice President and Chief Counsel of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). “The Hatch Act Enforcement Transparency and Accountability Act would help the public and Congress understand how and why higher level appointees, including White House personnel are held accountable for violations of the law. And it would begin the process of dismantling the current two-tiered system, where those with the most power are subject to the least accountability. CREW applauds Sen. Luján for his commitment to this issue and strongly endorses the Hatch Act Enforcement Transparency and Accountability Act.”
“The Office of Special Counsel is in desperate need of greater transparency, and this bill would provide that. This legislation will make sure OGE is truly holding both career officials and political appointees accountable when they violate the law and ensure our elections are protected from interference,” said Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, Senior Government Affairs Manager, Project On Government Oversight (POGO).
Background: The Hatch Act Enforcement Transparency and Accountability Act strengthens the Hatch Act by requiring the OSC to notify Congress when it declines to initiate an investigation against a political appointee. This legislation also requires OSC to provide the Chair and Ranking Members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC) and the House Committee on Oversight and Reform (OGR) with a written report containing the complete basis for declining to conduct such investigations. It also instructs the OSC to provide the Chair and Ranking Members of HSGAC and OGR with an annual written report on the number of allegations received by the Special Counsel in the previous year and the number of allegations that resulted in an investigation, with separate data sets for political appointees and career federal workers.
So those are my thoughts about the Hatch Act. The priority of a reworking of the Hatch Act no doubt would be deemed quite low in this day of threats to American democracy, but I truly think that it is not an inconsequential issue. For better government I contend that a closer look be placed upon it. With the direct threats to career government employees voiced by the MAGA crowd, it is only fair to revisit this act in these times.
54th Posting, July 21, 2023.