She is sort of right.
“She is sort of right.”
Hatch Act does not apply tp POTUS or his VP.
...maybe, but in reality, way WAY left.....
In a way, yes. But it’s a focus on minutia. It’s like getting pulled over for going 56 in a 55 in a place where most people do 65. It’s a technicality and ridiculously unreasonable.
she is?? I truly don’t understand how...
In what way is she sort of right?
Breaking historic “norms” is not breaking the law.
The legal semantics is whether or not the White House makes a substantial contribution to Trump’s speech. Some could argue the mere location does. Some could argue that in these times the location itself would not matter.
What Trump could do is to make the speech while standing in the Rose Garden but with the camera focus not on the White House in any way.
She’s an ignorant ass. Never mind that Trump would save the taxpayers millions of dollars in cost of Secret Service, air force one, transport of equipment, the list goes on. Never mind any of that.
“She is sort of right.“
She is totally wrong.
The Hatch Act was passed to prevent New Deal politicians from using WPA funded laborers for direct political campaign activities.
It was passed in direct response to gross abuse of the WPA (Works Progress Administration) which was a New Deal make-work program. The program was designed to help unemployed unskilled laborers by hiring them for federal infrastructure projects.
Democrat incumbents instead had these workers doing GOTV re-election campaigning on the taxpayer dime. Conservatives were rightly outraged and passed the Hatch act.
Those who opposed the Hatch act argued that incumbents SHOULD be able to use their administrative staff and resources to mount a vigorous reelection campaign, including strategic planning, speechwriting, etc.. and that certain political activities were impossible to separate from non-political executive functions of the office.
For example, when a President directs his staff to focus on passage of a major promised tax cut - he believes it is for the good of the country, but it also helps him politically. How can you separate the two?
This is a legitimate point, so the Hatch act exempted certain activities, so that a President and VP could pursue their political agendas while on office, (as they were elected to do) without having to worry about being in violation of the Hatch Act.
There is nothing wrong with a President using his staff to carry out his political agenda, write speeches, develop strategies, etc.. - the hatch act might prevent him from using IRS agents or US postal service workers to campaign door to door for his re-election. Or it might prevent him from ordering national guard to wear Trump hats.
The tax funded WPA workers were supposed to be used on roads and bridges - they were being used to go door to door campaigning for Democrats’ re-election - THAT was what the Hatch act was passed to prevent - it was NOT passed to keep a President from using his staff to advance his political agenda.
“Do this speech”
WTF does that even mean?
Write it? Broadcast it? Host it?