Following his long-running trend of pushing GOP talking points in The Washington Post, Reagan and George H.W. Bush official David B. Rivkin Jr. joins George W. Bush aide William A. Burck in crafting an op-ed for this morning's paper calling for an investigation into the White House's communications with Senate candidates Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff. The op-ed features an egregious misstatement of the federal law they claim may have been broken that completely undermines their point.

Rivkin and Burck write:

If there is some basis to believe a crime was committed, even if the evidence may not be definitive or even particularly convincing, the Justice Department would step in for further investigation.

Given that the U.S. Code explicitly proscribes “promises [of] any employment, position, [or] appointment . . . to any person as consideration, favor or reward for,” among other things, staying out of any political primary, this standard has been amply met.

That's simply a lie. The law in question, 18 U.S.C. § 600, does not “explicitly proscribe 'promises of employment'” in exchange for “staying out of any political primary” -- which is probably why the writers deliberately used a purported paraphrase instead of continuing to quote from the statute. The only thing the statute “explicitly proscribe[s]” is trading a promise of employment for “the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party.” It also bans the promise of employment in exchange for the far-broader “political activity,” which conservatives have dubiously claimed applies to the Sestak and Romanoff cases.

The statute, “Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity,” reads in full:

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Legal experts have pointed out that deciding not to seek election does not constitute the “political activity” envisioned by the statute. For example, In a May 28 post, The Washington Post's Greg Sargent reported that former Bush administration chief ethics lawyer Richard Painter stated he “cannot see how this statute can be reasonably applied to a candidate's own decision on whether to run in an election”:

Painter also took issue with the notion that the version of events aired by the White House today could in any way be illegal. Republicans point to a Federal statute that prohibits any promises of “employment” as a “reward for any political activity.”

But Painter says applying this to the Sestak situation is a big stretch. He argued that the sort of “political activity” referred to in the statute concerns political activity you might do for someone else, not actions you might take on your own behalf, such as dropping out of a race.

For instance, he said, this statute prevents things like the offer of a job to someone in exchange for their support for a particular candidate. “I cannot see how this statute can be reasonably applied to a candidate's own decision on whether to run in an election,” Painter said.

“Based on the information disclosed from the White House, it's even more apparent that this is a non issue,” Painter said. “No scandal. Time to move on.”

Similarly, Loyola law professor Richard Hasen has commented that 18 U.S.C. § 600 “seems to be a statute that's really aimed at preventing patronage appointments” i.e., “giving people who have done political favors for you jobs where they make money,” and that he “can't find a case where it's ever been applied” in the way conservatives are trying to apply it to claim the Sestak offer was illegal.

Painter and Hasen join many, many legal and political experts and historians who have stated that the Sestak and Romanoff cases are not illegal and in fact are examples of typical actions made by every administration. Indeed, Ron Kaufman, who served as President George H.W. Bush's White House political director, has reportedly said of the cases, “Tell me a White House that didn't do this, back to George Washington.”

But Rivkin and Burck, however, want to claim that a crime may have been committed. And in order to make that case, they're willing to flat-out lie about what the law they say may have been broken actually says.