Strassel forwards claim White House violated Hatch Act

From Strassel's June 4 Wall Street Journal column:

Legal experts note it would be difficult to bring charges under the criminal statute that makes it illegal to offer a federal position in exchange for political activity. That requires solid proof of a quid pro quo, always a tough standard. Yet as Scott Coffina, associate counsel to George W. Bush, has noted, the White House may have blundered into a separate charge.

“The Hatch Act,” writes Mr. Coffina in National Review Online, “makes it illegal for a federal employee to use his official position or authority to interfere with or affect the result of an election.” He notes that among Mr. Bauer's justifications for the Sestak talk was that Democrats had a “legitimate interest” in avoiding a primary. “Advancing the interests of a political party is not a 'legitimate' use of one's official government position,” says Mr. Coffina, yet Mr. Bauer is on record saying that was the goal.

Hasen, Painter dispute claim that Hatch Act applies to Sestak case

Hasen: GOP Senators calling for investigation “didn't cite the Hatch Act ... and I think there's a good reason for that.” Asked whether the Hatch Act is relevant to this instance, Loyola law professor Richard Hasen stated:

HASEN: Well, you know, I haven't heard -- if you look at letter the Republican senators from the Judiciary Committee sent to Attorney General Holder asking for an investigation, they didn't cite the Hatch Act generally, it cited the Section 600, and I think there's a good reason for that. When you have the president of a particular party, the president is really the head of that party, and the president and the administration, they really wear two hats. This is true whether you're talking about Republican or Democratic administrations. That is, they have the political side, and they have their job as executive. And so long as they take steps to make sure that the two are not mixed -- for example, using government offices or using government resources to further political goals -- that's really been an accepted part of politics for a long time. [On the Record, 5/28/10]

Former chief ethics lawyer for Bush rebuts charges that White House committed a crime in Sestak matter. In a May 28 blog post on Legal Ethics Forum, Bush ethics advisor Richard Painter rejected claims that laws were violated in the Sestak case, stating that “this is politics and not much else.” Painter added in June 2 blog post that "[t]he Hatch Act language is ambiguous and potentially very broad, but has not been interpreted and applied that way by the Executive Branch for a long time":

As I have explained in earlier posts. regardless of what happened with the Sestak job offer it is unlikely that a crime was committed. Whether it was an advisory board position or Secretary of the Navy or something else does not matter. There was no demonstrable quid pro quo. The bribery statute does not apply. The Hatch Act language is ambiguous and potentially very broad, but has not been interpreted and applied that way by the Executive Branch for a long time.