| William Weber has asked an honest question about Blue Jersey's ongoing expose on Chris Christie's attempt to use his office to become the next Governor of New Jersey. The question is a very good one: When does a campaign actually begin?
The Hatch Act, itself, does not explain such details. It is literally impossible to write a law that would cover all the possibilities. Instead, the authority to investigate and issue rulings is given to the Office of Special Counsel. These rulings have the force of law, unless and until they are overruled by a court with appropriate jurisdiction.
After the jump, I'll look at what the OSC says about when elections begin. |
On Jan. 10, 2001, the OSC released a ruling entitled When does a candidacy begin?. It reads, in part: Historically, the Civil Service Commission (Commission) held that "the prohibition against candidacy extends not merely to the formal announcement of candidacy but also to the preliminaries leading to such announcement and to canvassing or soliciting support or doing or permitting to be done any act in furtherance of candidacy." See In re Lukasik, 3 P.A.R. 34, 35 (1969); In re Rooks, 3 P.A.R. 17, 24 (1969) (both quoting Political Activity of Federal Officers and Employees, Pamphlet 20, P. 15, a Commission publication serving as a compilation of its prior determinations). Because the Hatch Act has been interpreted to prohibit preliminary activities regarding candidacy, any action that can reasonably be construed as evidence that the individual is seeking support for or undertaking an initial "campaign" to secure nomination or election to office would be viewed as candidacy for purposes of the Hatch Act.
The emphasis is mine, because otherwise you may get lost in legal citations. Ultimately, the person seeking the ruling was advised that they could not, in fact, be "screened" for ofice by partisan officials. That person was employed as an Assistant United States Attorney and the office for which they would be screened was a county office.
March 19, 1999, a similar rulling was released. In part, it stated: Because the statute has been interpreted to prohibit preliminary activities regarding candidacy, any action which can reasonably be construed as evidence that the individual is seeking support for or undertaking an initial "campaign" to secure nomination or election to office would be viewed as candidacy for purposes of the Act. Engaging in the following types of activities directed toward candidacy would violate the Hatch Act: taking the action necessary under the law of a State to qualify for nomination for election, soliciting or receiving contributions or making expenditures, giving consent to or acquiescing in such activity by others on the employee's behalf, meeting with individuals to plan the logistics and strategy of a campaign, circulating nominating petitions or holding a press conference concerning one's candidacy.
Another applicable ruling was given on Feb 13, 1996. It reads: In your letter you pose two questions that address "testing the water" activities. Those questions and our answers follow.
(1) Could an employee commission a company to hold focus groups and to conduct a poll of constituents, both on an anonymous basis?
Commissioning a company to conduct focus groups to poll constituents on what issues are important to them would be permitted. Polling constituents specifically on such things as recognition of, or feelings toward, the employee as a candidate would not be permitted.
(2) Could an employee personally ask these questions or have an uncompensated colleague do so?
The Act would not prohibit the employee from leading a focus group that addresses issues of concern to the community. However, the employee would be prohibited from leading such a group if the intent is to receive information on the employee's potential as a candidate.
If an employee makes the decision to run for public office, and does not engage in any activities, such as the ones listed above, the employee would not violate the Act by engaging in informal discussion about the decision prior to resigning from their federal position.
I have to say that it would seem fairly clear that having your brother "represent your interests" at the RNC in Minnesota where he was seen "discussing gubernatorial prospects" would look to fairly clearly be a violation of the Hatch Act. The only way it could possibly be legal is if Todd Christie was acting without his brother's knowledge or approval. It's possible - until you understand that Todd Christie's reason for going and his conversation were publicized fairly broadly in New Jersey.
Chris Christie's campaign is legal only if he knows nothing of it. And the only people who don't know about it in New Jersey are the ones at the cemetary with big rocks over their heads. |
