Ethics

We will get some clarification on the facts from the White House today, but what has been said thus far (more on the specifics later) likely won't change what should be obvious -- this is politics and not much else.   

Some commentators, including some Members of Congress, continue to advance the theory that it is illegal for the Administration to offer a job to someone who has declared that he will run for federal office, that such an offer is "bribing" the person not to run and is illegal interference in a federal election.  As I have previously explained, such an offer cannot possibly be a bribe because an Administration job and standing for election are mutually exclusive under the Hatch Act.  One cannot be Secretary of the Navy (a job apparently not offered to Sestak) and a candidate for Congress at the same time.   The advisory board positions apparently discussed with Sestak would be exempt from this provision of the Hatch Act, but are uncompensated and of minimal other value to a United States Congressman.  The suggestion that someone would abandon a Senate bid for such an advisory board position is laughable.

As for interfering in an election, 18 USC 595, this statute can be interpreted very broadly to prohibit any official capacity activity by a federal employee that affects the outcome of an election (announcing a new Transportation Department project in a Congressman's district, giving a federal job to a candidate or potential candidate, etc.).  It isn't.  Indeed, I never heard of such a broad interpretation, until now.   Such an interpretation would place in legal jeopardy anyone who worked it the political affairs office of any Administration, Republican or Democratic, and many others as well.  Such an interpretation would prohibit any Administration job offer to any Member of Congress who intends to run for reelection.

For other reasons, I have suggested that we rethink the ill advised concept of having an Office of Political Affairs at the White House, and put that office at DNC or RNC instead.   Moving this office might reduce the excessive politicization of White House decision making, but it won't stop it

Long before there was a White House Office of Political Affairs, FDR advisor Harry Hopkins is reported to have said "We will spend and spend, and tax and tax, and elect and elect."  Has anything much changed?  I would ask that commentators, particularly those who have worked in political affairs and know what goes on in Washington, spare us sanctimonious statutory interpretation that contradicts much of what the federal government does.   

Meanwhile, we are distracted from what is going on right now with the banking bill and the lobbyists who have every intention of legally interfering with federal elections in the fall if they don?t get what they want from Congress now.