I was curious whether US Attorney Laura Duffy did anything wrong by contributing to Carl DeMaio. Instead of accepting Bob Filner’s accusations that she violated the Hatch Act, I decided to research it for myself.
A simple search on the world wide web of the term “Hatch Act” directed me to the following site. The federal government webpage clearly defines activities that Federal employees are permitted to participate in.
They include:
– May register and vote as they choose.
– May assist in nonpartisan voter registration drives.
– May participate in campaigns where none of the candidates represent a political party.
– May contribute money to political campaigns, political parties, or partisan political groups.
– May attend political fundraising functions.
– May attend political rallies and meetings.
– May join political clubs or parties.
– May sign nominating petitions.
– May campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, or municipal ordinances.
– May be a candidate for public office in a nonpartisan election.
May express opinions about candidates and issues. If the expression is political activity, however – i.e., activity directed at the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group – then the expression is not permitted while the employee is on duty, in any federal room or building, while wearing a uniform or official insignia, or using any federally owned or leased vehicle.
I’ve highlighted the relevant points since Mr. Filner is calling for her resignation based on two actions. Ms. Duffy contributed to the DeMaio campaign for Mayor and Ms. Duffy expressed her opinion using a private email that he acted inappropriately at a political forum. Both of these acts are clearly permitted by the Hatch Act according to the Federal Government.
Mr. Filner is purposely attacking Ms. Duffy and attempting to damage her professional reputation by implying wrongly action because she supports DeMaio. He is either unable to understand the law or, more likely, purposely attacking her reputation to avoid the issue that she brought up in her email: that he behaved inappropriately at a Jewish temple.
Bob Filner should learn about class from someone like Laura Duffy.
Comments 5
The Republican Machine rolls on in San Diego.
Duffy, or an FBI Agent, a Secret Services Agent or any Further Restricted Federal Employees cannot be involved in Politics. Duffy just organizing a political debate is a violation of the Federal Hatch Act, let alone a political email afterwards.
The Federal Office of Special Counsel will be the investigating agency.
The email from DeMaio’s campaign was a Press Release and Promotion to news organizations using the Democratic United States Attorney’s Appointed Title to show favor to DeMaio a Republican.
As an employee of the Department of Justice who works on Criminal cases, Duffy is not allow to organize, manage, or be part of political events. She is a Federal lawyer, she should know Federal laws such as the Hatch Act, specifically for Further Restricted Federal Employees like United States Attorneys. Duffy should quit or be expelled. The appointed position of United States Attorney in the Department of Justice further Restricts Duffy’s Political actions compared to other types of less restricted Federal employees.
http://www.osc.gov/haFederalFurtherRestrisctionandActivities.htm
“Employees may not campaign for or against candidates or otherwise engage in political activity in concert with a candidate for partisan political office.
Such Employees May not organize or manage political rallies or meetings.
May not use their official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election.
For example: May not use their official titles or positions while engaged in political activity.”
May not engage in political activity – i.e., activity directed at the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group – while the employee is on duty, in any federal room or building, while wearing a uniform or official insignia, or using any federally owned or leased vehicle. For example:
May not wear or display partisan political buttons, T-shirts, signs, or other items.
May not make political contributions to a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.
May not post a comment to a blog or a social media site that advocates for or against a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.
May not use any e-mail account or social media to distribute, send or forward content that advocates for or against a partisan political party, candidate for partisan political office, or partisan political group.
Just wondering if la playa knows what a partisan political office is. DeMaio is not running for partisan office. It doesn’t matter that he’s a Republican. It doesn’t matter that the Republican Party is supporting him. He is running for a non-partisan office, pure and simple.
Hi Spin Zone.
The Federal Investigation is being conducted by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). To make the non-partisan San Diego Mayoral Race partisan requires evidence that DeMaio solicits or advertises the endorsement of a partisan political party, like the Republican Party. Our Mayoral race is presumed non-partisan, until action by any candidate and Polical Party refute the assumption.
The OSC has determined that the Federal Hatch Act is applicable to some local non-partisan contests. Especially if a non-partisan Mayor candidate uses the Endorsement of the local Republican Party in their campaign literature. It is up to the discretion of the OSC investigators if the contest for Mayor of San Diego has a known Republican candidate, who has the support of the Republican Party in San Diego.
http://www.osc.gov/documents/hatchact/federal/fha-27.htm
“Usually, a nonpartisan election is so designated by state or local laws. Such state and local laws, however, create only a rebuttable presumption that an election is nonpartisan. See Special Counsel v. Yoho, 15 M.S.P.R. 409, 413 (1983), overruled on other grounds, Special Counsel v. Purnell, 37 M.S.P.R. 184 (1988).
Evidence showing that partisan politics actually enter the campaigns of the candidates may rebut this presumption. See In re Broering, 1 P.A.R. 778, 779 (1955). For example, if a candidate solicits or advertises the endorsement of a partisan political party or uses a political party’s resources to further his or her campaign, these actions may transform a nonpartisan election into a partisan one.”
http://www.osc.gov/documents/hatchact/federal/fha-27.htm