Shorter Dana Perino-The Hatch Act Doesn't Apply To Republicans

Talking Points Memo has posted an interesting transcript from this morning's White House News Gaggle.

Reporter: How about this political interference with the Hatch Act?
Dana Perino: There wasn't political interference within the Hatch Act. What you're talking about is --

Reporter: Use of the government agencies?

Perino: It is perfectly lawful for the political appointees at the White House to provide informational briefings to political appointees at the agencies. No laws were broken, and we provided more information about that last night.

Reporter: Was that all vetted through the Counsel's Office prior to those sorts of sessions happening? What sort of oversight was done within the White House?

Perino: Yes, generally -- because it's not unlawful and it wasn't unusual for informational briefings to be given. They were run by Sara Taylor and Scott Jennings.

Reporter: But there's a higher standard, obviously, at the White House than no laws were broken. Aren't there ethical questions, as well?

Perino: There were no -- what ethical (rules) would have been broken?

Reporter: No, in terms of using federal resources, federal people to encourage people. The allegation is out there that people were being encouraged to help Republicans.

Reporter #2: And targeting certain Democrats --

Perino: There is no prohibition under the Hatch Act of allowing political appointees to talk to other political appointees about the political landscape in which they are trying to advance the President's agenda. None.

Reporter: You say it's not a violation of the Hatch Act.

Perino: Not a violation of law, or of ethics.

Reporter: So why is the Office of Special Counsel investigating it, if you're still saying that it's clearly fine, why would they be investigating?

Perino: You'll have to ask them. You'll have to ask them.

For starters the Hatch Act doesn't talk about political appointees. It talks about employees who may engage in partisan political activities and those who can't. Political appointees can engage in partisan political activities, but their participation is limited. A publication of the Office of Special Counsel says they may not

*use official authority or influence to interfere with an election
*solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency
*solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations)
*be candidates for public office in partisan elections
*engage in political activity while:
on duty
in a government office
wearing an official uniform
using a government vehicle
wear partisan political buttons on duty

These briefings were given at government offices. That they were more than informational was clearly established at the Doan hearing last month. You can see the video here. A legal memo from The Congressional Research Service on the issue is clear. Political activities may not be conducted by any Federal employee while on duty or at a government office. I guess if you look a little like Cameron Diaz you think you can lie and reporters will believe you. The Special Counsel might not conduct a real investigation of this mess, but a real investigation is warranted.

Update: I was not entirely accurate when I said political activities may not be conducted by any Federal employee while on duty or at a government office. The Hatch Act does allow the President and Vice President, certain Presidential aids and a limited number of political employees (generally cabinet officers or others whose appointment was confirmed by the Senate)to participate in political activities while on duty or at government facilities. However, most of the political employees attending Parino's coffee clatches were not members of the limited class. Moreover, criminal penalties apply to supervisors who are overtly coercive in demanding subordinate Federal empolyees participate in political activities. 18 USC 610. If Doan said to her suborinates, "You will attend the Scott Jennings brown bag" that statement might be considered a command and she might be liable criminally.