Posted on 01/17/2010 10:27:32 AM PST by Winged Hussar
The President is, as the head of his party, certainly entitled to give campaign speeches on behalf of Democratic candidates such as Martha Coakley: an individual who advanced her career by keeping an innocent man (Amirault) in prison. We suspect, however, that he cannot legally use taxpayer money for this purpose. Whitehouse.gov, as the property of the United States Government, is the property of America's taxpayers. Several pages at this Web site endorse the election or re-election of Democratic candidates, and one recommends that people visit Organizing for America (barackobama.com).
We are not an attorney and cannot say whether it is or is not legal to use a Web site of the Federal government to host electioneering speeches that the President delivered legally in other venues such as campaign rallies, but we must certainly question it and invite attorneys to weigh in on the subject. The Hatch Act says, 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 not—(1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election." This suggests that the President or any other elected official can campaign for a party member, but cannot use government resources such as Congressional franking privileges, government-owned Web sites, or similar resources for this purpose. We also question a pitch for Barackobama.com (Organizing for America) at Whitehouse.gov.
(Excerpt) Read more at israpundit.com ...
This is what I thought - there are .gov ads all over my internet promoting the greatness of Obama -— how is this legal ???
Can we send this article to Glenn Beck and others ???
Surely Atty Gen Holder endorses what ever “That One” does. There is no violation when you are the Messiah.
Dems violate law? Dog bites man.
I'm not so sure that doing this helped her career in any way. Probably made her more popular with the prosecutorial establishment, but certainly not with the general public.
Her position is, however, utterly disgraceful. If there is every anyone who deserves a full and complete pardon, expungement of his record, apology and financial restitution, it's Mr. Amirault.
He's the Dreyfuss of our time. Protecting the reputation of an institution is more important than the horrific injustice done to an individual.
Where is our Zola?
LOL!
The Hatch Act serves only to suppress partisan politics by non-elected, non-appointed civil servants. This started with the Pendleton Act. Earlier everybody in the government was an appointee and they could campaign.
Wouldn’t that also apply to using Air Force One and other government planes to attend rallies and fundraising events for Democrat candidates? Didn’t Nancy Pelosi use three government planes to attend some events and we know Obama is using Air Force One to go anywhere?
Hatch? As in, his parents were reptiles? That could explain many things.
Obama violates everything.
There they go again.
0bama FINALLY decides to “go to” church today... WHERE does he “go to” church? He decides to go to MassachusettEs so the taxpayer has to foot the bill because he is entitled to “worship.” While he is in Taxachusettes he may as well help Coakley with a little campaigning...
I think it's long over due the time to repeal the Pendleton Act et seq.
“Wouldn’t that also apply to using Air Force One and other government planes to attend rallies and fundraising events for Democrat candidates? Didn’t Nancy Pelosi use three government planes to attend some events and we know Obama is using Air Force One to go anywhere?”
It sounds like it would apply. If Obama wants to use Air Force One to campaign, the campaign should probably have to reimburse the government for the operating expenses. Same for Pelosi. If the campaigns are not reimbursing the government, we should make it clear to the public that Obama & Co. are using OUR tax money for electioneering purposes.
He has stolen all of the taxpayer money; put it into private slush funds and is now calling it his own.
bttt
I thought that very same thing. He violated the “hatch” act just by being born.
Actually, congress, at the urging of the previous administration, voted the taxpayer money. He simply "inherited" it and treats it as a slush fund.
Never waste a crisis, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.